Comments on: An online journalist's home gets raided; so why aren't we more angry?

By: Rafael Marquez

Rafael Marquez — Mon, 03 May 2010 20:44:59 +0000

Just to make sure I understand, a private corporation manages to cajole law enforcement to raid someone’s house over a phone that they already knew the guy had, and the only thing that people seem to be outraged about is whether the guy was a “real” journalist or not.

Did I get that right?

I’d be more concerned about whether law enforcement overstepped their bounds before I’d care about whether “checkbook journalism” was real journalism or not. But then again, I’m not a “real” journalist. I’m just a hack that makes money writing articles.

By: 144.142.13.73

144.142.13.73 — Mon, 03 May 2010 15:56:27 +0000

This: “I’m not enraged because they are not journalists” is *exactly* why more journalists aren’t up in arms. There is a whole generation of journos that think that web journalism isn’t “real” journalism, or the the webby, start-up mentality means people aren’t doing real work.

I think the Society of Professional Journalists has already made their statement: “Those people aren’t part of our clique.”

By: 70.137.160.79

70.137.160.79 — Sun, 02 May 2010 23:17:50 +0000

I don’t know if the Gizmodo people are “journalists” or not.

They are, however, people who paid money to someone to give them stolen property.

By: 76.172.205.12

76.172.205.12 — Sun, 02 May 2010 23:10:53 +0000

“Real”journalists? “Good”journalists? By God, the Journalism Cops are out in force on this one! Robert (and Robert) have got this one right. With friends like these school-marms, who needs the state to be your enemy? There is nothing illegal nor even immoral about checkbook journalism. It is merely a practice that MSM profession, for good reasons, CLAIMS to eschew (in fact, the networks use it all the time by providing air fare and lodging for certain out of town guests on news-driven shows).

Like it or not, Gizmodo has a readership far broader than most currently existing newspapers and whether one thinks Chen is a “real” journalist is redolent with the verbiage surrounding the Galileo trial.

Let’s say that when Ellsberg took the Pentagon Papers he gave them to a friend who have them to a friend and so on down the line during which some one or another paid some money. Would the country have collpased if the NYTimes or WaPo had gone ahead and published that “checkbook” tainted material?

One can like or dislike what Gawker owner Nick Denton did when he purchased the phone. You can even indict him if he broke the law. But in the middle of all that is a journalist providing information to the public and then being subject to confiscation of work product and sources thanks to a secretive for profit corporation. When they come for you, don’t expect much sympathy from lowly “bloggers” with audiences in the tens of millions.

By: Ivan du Toit

Ivan du Toit — Sat, 01 May 2010 12:49:53 +0000

Umm yes, I think both parties are in the “wrong”. One for coughing up cash and using “frowned upon” tactics, the other for loosing a prototype! In the end though they got what they wanted. Publicity.
No big issue here, it’s business as usual.

By: Travis Mason-Bushman

Travis Mason-Bushman — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 12:00:52 +0000

Sorry, but no outrage here. The idea that journalists should somehow be immune from investigation and prosecution of crimes they may be complicit in, now that’s outrageous.

The facts are coming out and they’re ugly for the thief and Gizmodo.

Wired tracked down Brian Hogan, the guy who “found” (read, stole) the phone. He admitted that he personally made no attempt to find the rightful owner and return it to him.

“A friend of Hogan

By: 67.163.38.121

67.163.38.121 — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:32:21 +0000

Real journalists know the difference between checkbook journalism and buying property that they are perfectly aware doesn’t belong to the seller.

They didn’t pay for access to the thing, they paid for the thing itself.

Sorry, I have a hard time getting worked up when Gizmodo made such an blatantly dumb move.

By: 65.210.114.2

65.210.114.2 — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:34:38 +0000

Yes, this search should be met with more outrage — even if you don’t accord much respect to online journalists with open checkbooks, this is exactly the kind of “slippery slope” action that if not fought will be used to justify searches and seizures of other journalists’ offices and homes.

By: 85.74.199.81

85.74.199.81 — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:30:42 +0000

They’ve identified the man who found and sold the missing phone.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ytech_gadg/ytech_gadg_tc1874

By: 75.208.82.201

75.208.82.201 — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 21:54:45 +0000

I’m not enraged because they are not journalists. Journalists don’t pull silly pranks at events like CES when they are credentialed as such. They have shown silly and often nonprofessional behavior in the past. If we should be enraged, it should be for their pretentious behavior and them devaluing our profession.