Please listen to this podcast on the Gizmodo iPhone Leak:
- Where do you draw the line with shield laws? (i.e. how much of a journalist’s actions should be protected?)
- Should bloggers and/or online journalists receive the same protection?
Comments
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
J397 Mass Media Ethics 
The definition of journalism is broadening. Blogging has emerged and is a new form of journalism that cannot be ignored. Anybody who has a computer and a thought process can post a blog nowadays. The line between journalist, citizen journalist and blogger is blurring. Once somebody hits click, he or she is publishing a piece of journalism to the world. It doesn’t make a difference if the person writing it is a field reporter or a 13-year-old girl, his or her work is being published and can be seen by anyone. In addition, the viewers have a hard time recognizing who is a professional journalist and who is not, and frankly they don’t really investigate or care. A shield law is designed to protect reporter’s rights in order to protect his or her sources. If the journalist (any form) is making stories up or lying about facts that is endangering somebody or something then a shield law should be enforced. If a person is willing to post inaccurate, confidential subject matter that could be seen as unlawful on a blog, then it doesn’t matter if you are a blogger or a professional journalist- the ends are the same and both should receive the same protection or punishment. In Mixed Media, Jimmy Wales sums it up nicely by saying, “This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so longs as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing.”
I am of the belief that bloggers should not be protected under shield laws. In order for journalist to be protected under shield laws I believe they should have some professional training. Now days there are many people who walk around and introduce themselves as journalist when in reality they give us a bad reputation. I understand that a lot, if not the majority of journalist today did not have formal training. However, times have changed and journalist need to separate themselves from bloggers and biased opinions. We must regain the respectable image that we once upheld in society.
After listening to the podcast, I have to agree with the professor in that there should be a separate set of rules for the Gizmodo case and the CIA leaks case. Government agency whistle blowing has significant social impact. Corporate whistle blowing can also have an impact, but they usually aren’t as actively attached to citizens as the government is. I think releasing information on government actions should have more weighted protection because of the amount of people affected by government actions. By choice or by default, government actions speak for that country’s citizens. Our nation’s history of supporting a right to expose fraud, scandal, and other forms of unethical behavior shows a need to continue protection for whistle blowers.
Journalists shouldn’t be protected when they intentionally and willingly cause unnecessary harm (along the lines of pain and death) to people. All those adverbs and adjectives in the previous sentence seem loaded and might be hard to prove in a court of law, but I think hindering scandals and unethical practices by the government can cause greater harm and cause history to repeat itself.
I draw the line with shield laws where if the government needs information regarding a journalists sources because of national security, police need source information to help with an investigation, or if a person’s life is at stake, or if they break a federal law, a journalist should be required to divulge his source. Like he said in the podcast, journalists could become the worlds greatest bankrobbers if they didn’t have shield laws. Journalists actions should be protected as much as possible so that they can do their jobs without fear of prosecution if they publish and unflattering story, and witnesses or sources should be able to feel comfortable giving interviews annonomously without the fear that they’ll be named.
In stories such as the Apple Iphone disclosure, I think that it is in the grey area because the website paid 5,000$ for it and then published the information on their website. Shield laws are designed to protect journalists who are whistleblowers and their sources. Their actions violated a federal law and so they should not be protected under a shield law. I agree that the police should not have barged in and broken down the door, but they have the right to get to the bottom of the case in a more restrained way.
Bloggers and online journalists should have the same rights and treatment as real journalists. They cannot be exceptions to the rule, especially when it comes to shield laws. They have to produce sources when it’s necessary. They publish information on websites that people read and so they are journalists, and in my eyes, all journalists should be held to the same standard.
Professor Jonathan Turley identifies the reason why Gizmodo’s blog post about the new Apple product should not be considered valid journalistic enterprise: They paid for stolen technology! Apple’s sales will be unjustly affected because Gizmodo reported on the new iPhone before it hit the market. Jason Chen should not be protected.
New York Times reporter James Risen should only have to reveal his sources if the information is absolutely necessary for national security reasons. If naming the sources is not deemed necessary, James Risen should not be obligated to reveal them.
Online journalists should receive the same protection as traditional journalists.
The content produced by online journalists is comparable to traditional media content. I believe Martin Kuhn’s blogging code proposal identifies the issues bloggers should understand in order to receive the same protection as traditional journalists.
They must be accountable for material, they should strive for factual truth and be as transparent as possible. If every blogger were to agree to this journalistic code, then the distinctions between protection rights would be less blurred.
Shield laws are a tricky subject because they pose threats to both the journalist and the government. The line should be drawn when the information that is reported and leaked creates potential harm for people. In the case of the 4G Iphone, its understandable that Apple wants their information confidential, but to break down a journalist door with the police is ridiculous. Leaking information about a new cellphone isn’t hurting anything except for Apples ego. However, James Risen’s case is different. Leaking information about our country’s CIA and presidential administration could give potential terrorist and inside look into our country’s government plans. This approach of preventing potential harm should be applied to blogging and online journalist as well. The internet allows information to spread so fast it could be a potential threat to the dissemination of classified information. If rules regarding shield laws were promoted, it may prevent future crisis. I think that shield laws should be re-evaluated and structured to give journalist their freedom of speech, and the safety of our country.
These are very complex issues. I don’t see how anyone in their right mind could be completely for one or the other. The Shield Law must be respected. If journalists had no protection over whether to reveal their sources. Not only would this place the profession under too much government scrutiny, but people wouldn’t talk to journalists in the first place, knowing they were nothing but snitches. After all, it took clandestine sources to reveal the Watergate and Abu Ghraib scandals.
On the flipside, I can understand a government’s concern when journalism veers off in the the danger zone of, possibly, revealing undercover FBI and CIA agents. This not only endangers the lives involved but the security of the country. Still, I agree with Turley in that the Obama Administration seems to carry a “harsh view” towards journalists. If there’s an incident where the Shield Law MUST be overlooked, then I feel the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the cruciality of such a situation.
The Gizmodo controversy was nonsense. If the patron hadn’t sold the iPhone for 5 grand, there, probably, wouldn’t have been a controversy. Unfortunately, it constitutes as stolen property and selling stolen property is against the law. In my opinion, he had it coming…
This is tough decision for me. Unlike my feelings about most ethical questions in the field of journalism and the sticky situations reporters inevitably, and frequently, get themselves into, I don’t have an immediate sense of right or wrong on this one. I think shield laws are absolutely necessary to help reporters obtain information as trusted confidantes. However, I agree with Dr. Turley that these protections are not absolute and there are some cases in which journalists must turn over sources or information. This comes back to the discussion we had in class yesterday about reporters aiding in police investigations. I don’t think that is right. In an effort to maintain order and maximize efficiency I think all professionals need to do their jobs, and not interfere with other’s.
In order to make a decision about whether or not bloggers and online journalists should be protected by these laws, it’s important to asses their impact on society and the rest of the media. This is hard to do because as Bivins points out, they are not journalists by traditional standards. “Because the information generated is generally done by ‘citizens,’ it is often done without the interference, or aid, of editors… the content served on most of these sites doesn’t always meet the traditional criteria for news. Nonetheless, the growth and popularity of such sites as Twitter… has led to a change in content. Both twitter and Facebook are now being extensively used as news distribution platforms,” (Bivins, p.263). I think the later portion of this quote hits the nail on the head. Even though these outlets may not be considered hard news sources, they are still providing content that is extremely influential in today’s society. For that reason I think bloggers and online journalists should receive the same protections as journalists.
I do believe that all journalists should be protected. However, I also agree with Turley when he states that “the concern is that as we broaden the definition of who is a journalist it’s going to gradually reduce the protection of journalists.” I feel that as a professional reporter, you are a professionally proclaimed journalist but as a blogger you are a self-proclaimed journalist. If all bloggers were protected by shield laws, then essentially any human being could hide behind the protections of a professional journalist. If Chen worked for Gizmodo and Gizmodo was a blog for a higher, professional firm and was paid to report then I believe that he has the right to hide behind shield laws and Gizmodo should back him. It was the fault of the Apple employee to leave such a protected document out in the open for the public to discover. Thus he must suffer the consequences of what the patron who found the document and Gizmodo decided to do with the document. That is not to say that I agree with Gizmodo’s decision to buy the document; however, the principle of the matter is an Apple employee left confidential information out in the public and someone was able to take advantage of it. Bivins states, on the ethics in news journalism quoting Candice Gauthier that “invading the privacy of some and interfering with their choices regarding the release of information may be necessary in order to permit others access to information needed to make equally important decision in their lives” (259). I agree with this statement. However to say that an individual “needs to know” the specifics of the new iPhone is unreasonable and thus not an equally important decision they have to make in their lives. I still think it was wrong of the individual to not turn in the document for its rightful owner to find. I feel the act of the individual coincides with what the Bivins describes regarding the Kantian model of ethics as “Invading a person’s privacy treats that person as a mere means by interfering with the choice to keep certain information private” (259). What the individual did is wrong. However, I feel that Gizmodo had an opportunity and pounced on it and was able to benefit, at least in the short term, from their decision.
Generally, shield laws are to protect journalists who need to serve as whistle-blowers on sensitive issues prior to a legal ruling. They state that journalists do not need to disclose their sources. Also, they can refuse to testify about information they write in an article. However, if the case related to the commission of a crime, it’s not allowed. For this Gizmodo case, Chen makes out that he didn’t know but it’s his fault that he hadn’t done enough research.
Bloggers are more people who are closer to citizen and they are not professional journalists at least. I don’t think the role of professional journalists will be replaced by bloggers. If this Gizmodo case happened with a just ordinary blogger, the one who write on the blog will not protected by shield law or even considered. Journalists have some sort of mission to keep the public informed but blogger doesn’t. Though, this also means journalists have more social responsibility for what they have written, blogger don’t have that heavy responsibility. The shield law does protect journalists, but not bloggers. However, shield law surely doesn’t protect evidence related to the commission of a crime.
Shield laws can become complex very quickly. When exploring the shield law that journalists can protect their sources, it might all come down to the seriousness of the matter at hand. As a rule of thumb, a journalist’s actions should be fully protected as long as their protection doesn’t directly result in harm to other people–as with the Gizmodo case. However, if a journalist had managed to acquire a rare interview with a notorious drug lord, then he/she should report the whereabouts of the interviewee asap. It would really depend on what the journalist reported about.
The same approach can be applied in regard to bloggers/online journalists, since the internet as a source of news for the public is a relatively new concept, then it might only be on a case-by-case basis that shield laws should protect them. Since there are no standards in who can call them self a journalist (years on the job? education? published material?) then we don’t know when shield laws apply. A journalist with years of experience and published works in newspapers that has shifted his/her work to online articles is obviously not the same as a thirteen-year old who blogs daily. Until a more concrete organizational schema that defines who an online journalist is (if they generated revenue? how many visitors visit the site daily?), then who these shield laws protect is still unique for every case.
Jonathan Turley makes an excellent point when he says “You can’t possibly claim that no matter what a journalist does he can’t be forced to produce evidence. That would allow journalists to become the world’s most successful bank robbers.” Without having to name sources, journalists could make anything up and never have to prove it, although their legitimacy would constantly be questioned. There needs to be a point where journalists cannot hide behind shield laws, but at the same time sources need to be kept anonymous if they choose to keep their identity hidden. In many cases, whistle-blowing can cost someone their job, friendships, and reputation. This goes the same for bloggers and online journalists. They in no way should be less respected or less protected than print journalists
In both of these cases on the podcast, I feel that they had legitimate reasons to invoke the shield laws. For Gizmodo, it is not mentioned here, but the person that sold the iphone to Chen first attempted to return it to Apple but Apple did not recognize it as their product and would not accept it back. Not only did Gizmodo purchase it (as opposed to stealing) but Apple LOST the product carelessly at a bar! As for James Risen, it become a question of did he in any way jeopardize the CIA by writing this book? As most ethical issues are, shield laws appear to be very situational and it is hard to universalize where the line should be drawn.
Shield laws should apply to legitimate reporting, which begs the question, “What is legitimate reporting?” Journalism, online or not, should come from credible sources and distinguish news from opinion. The person or organization reporting the news should have done legitimate reporting. While I personally don’t see Gizmodo on the same level as traditional news reporting, the gadget guide has a whole team of reporters and editors and could technically be considered journalism. California Shield Law states that Shield Laws protect any “publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication.” I think the terms “blogging” and “online journalism” are distinguishable. A blogger could be any individual writing on a personal blog, which is probably less credible than “online journalism” involving reporters and editors. Therefore, bloggers should have a level of credibility and reporting to receive the protection of shield laws.
In cases like the Gizmodo leak, I don’t think the shield law should apply. The scope of breaking open a story on techonology vesus James Risen’s national security book serve the public in very different ways. I would argue that Risen’s work diserves sheild law protection because he has served the public with one of the fundamental purposes of a free press in a democracy: keeping an eye on the government. Gizmodo on the other hand, I would argue, is not really serving the public in a journalistic manner and that they used poor, unproffesional judgement. Gizmodo should not have taken the leaked ipod for money. I agree with what Jonathan Turley said in the podcast here,
“I think what makes it fundamentally less compelling is the fact that they paid for this phone. If they had simply discovered this phone and took pictures of it, no one would question that that’s a valid journalistic enterprise.”
Drawing the line between bloggers and professionals is not cut and dry. I think the purposes of a journalistic, free press should be more clear, and when a blogger or professional are serving the public with infromation that upholds democracy then sheild laws are an important way for importnat information to be made available to the public. For Gizmodo, I don’t think they deserve the protection. Sheild laws seem to be in place to protect journalists (or bloggers) from government retaliation, in cases where information is revealed about things the government has witheld from its citizens. Gizmodo does not fit into this category.
While I do think shield laws play an important role in helping journalists gain access to stories that otherwise would go untold, I do not believe shield laws should elevate journalists to a point where they are more protected than non-journalists when it comes to involvement in criminal activity. The line has to be drawn somewhere and if a journalist is breaking laws to get a story, I believe the line is being crossed. Protecting the identity of sources is one thing, but if you examine this issue within the context of a murder story, things get muddier. How is it acceptable to protect the identity of someone if they are of potential danger to society? Yet at the same time, if a source knows they are going to be ratted out, chances are they aren’t going to talk. I think here it comes down to the worth of the story to the general public. But what is the point of reporting about a murder with the murderer included as a source if it’s only going to cause more questioning?
Don’t get me wrong, I love blogs, and I surely see the value in them. But the fact remains that most bloggers are not real journalists. They have not had the training and experience to understand media ethics and proper reporting etc. What entitles them to the same rights as those who have worked hard to understand and practice the ins and outs of being an ethical journalist?