Basically, the White House wants to provide more protections for reporters (and bloggers) when it comes to disclosing sources. I think it should be on a case by case basis and not just one universal blanket rule. I also don't think that ALL bloggers should be protected, it depends on the blog and the person posting it. Do they have credibility? Are they making things up? etc.
See where you come down.
Shield Law Compromise would protect Reporters and Bloggers
6 comments:
I think that bloggers definitely deserve protection with Shield Laws.
Just because a blogger isn't using the same medium as a print journalist does not reduce their credibility, nor does it afford them the right to make things up. Print journalists have been caught making things up - just look at Jayson Blair, the ex-New York Times journalist - he plagiarized and falsified sources. Unfortunately that stuff is just going to happen irregardless of the medium being used.
I think bloggers deserve the same consideration for shield laws, but only if the same rules apply to them. Bloggers should not be allowed to report without being accountable for basic journalistic principles.
Bloggers are sometimes allowed leeway in printing opinions without all the facts or reporting knowing that incorrect information can always be updated. These types of shortcuts, whether in blog or print, should not be rewarded with shield law protection.
That's a good point, Chandra! If they want the same rights and protections, then they should have the same responsibilities and obligations. Although some bloggers have journalistic training, many don't. Without the same education and experience, it seems challenging to expect them to adhere to the same standards... They could at least take an ethics and journalism class :)
That said, I don't think they should be thrown to the wolves either if they do have a story of relevance and have been reporting responsibly. There are some very good, well researched blogs out there. But realistically, it seems like there's a lot of blogging about crocheting and motorcycles and who knows what that really has no need for those protections. Being so open source is a problem to make it fit in a legal category. I tend to think, if you are going to dabble in serious journalism/blogging, then you need to follow the standards. Otherwise, you could just end up causing harm and exponentially perpetuating misinformation.
"I also don't think that ALL bloggers should be protected, it depends on the blog and the person posting it."
That's all well and good - but how do you decide which bloggers it applies to and which it doesn't? I'm not saying it's not a good idea - it's great that bloggers are being recognized as a modern media source.
But how do you decide which bloggers deserve these rights and protections, and which are exempt? This seems like a plethora of court battles just waiting to happen. I see this being a bit too messy and disorganized to work - at least in the near future.
Maybe they will stick with the guidelines NY is using - someone who makes a living in journalism, which unfortunately will end up excluding most bloggers. Maybe they will have to delineate by subject matter, just for sake of drawing the line somewhere. That way the most sensitive information will be protected.
What Megan said. They should follow NY's guidelines.
---That's what I meant Michael. Blanket protection for ALL bloggers everywhere is not worth the hassle. That would create EVEN more court battles bc of all the people that would likely claim defamation, etc. Blogging is a dangerous area until clear cut rules can be established.
Post a Comment