These articles are the work of their author, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of nor an assignment by OJR.
December 22, 2011
Bloggers in Oregon, watch out. That’s because this month an Oregon court ruled that bloggers do not have same protection as the “media.”
This ruling emerged when Crystal Cox, a blogger, was accused of defaming Obsidian Finance Group and its co-founder Kevin Padrick on her blog. She posted that Padrick acted criminally in a federal bankruptcy case. Padrick sued and the court found that Cox was not protected under the state’s media shield law.
This decision has implications for bloggers around the country.
Since there is no legal definition for “the press,” this court ruling is one of the first to explicitly say that bloggers are not the media. This comes only a few short months after a federal court ruled that anyone, including bloggers, may legally record public officials, including police officers. The ruling said:
[C]hanges in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw. The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.
[Page 13 of the Slip Opinion from Glik v. Cuniffe]
While the Glik case was a victory for citizen journalism, the Oregon ruling is a failure to recognize the drastic changes occurring in the journalism world. Current technological advancements have made the line between citizen journalists and mainstream media harder to define. This is beneficial not only to anyone who produces news but also news consumers as well.
More...
No comments |
Archive Link
September 29, 2011
Last month, a federal court ruled that recording public officials, including police officers, is protected by the First Amendment. This decision, which may outrage law enforcement officials and members of Congress, is one of the first federal court decisions that brings the First Amendment into the Internet age.
This case emerged from an incident where a private citizen used his personal cell phone to capture alleged police brutality.
Simon Glik could have walked away when he saw two police officers punching a man in the face. Instead, he pulled out his cellphone and started recording it. When Mr. Glik informed the police officers that he was recording audio, the officer arrested him for violating the state's wiretap law. He also was charged with disturbing the peace and aiding the escape of a prisoner. The charges were dropped eventually because of lack of merit, but Mr. Glik filed a lawsuit claiming his free-speech rights had been violated.
This latest ruling is especially relevant to those who consider themselves citizen journalists. Before the court's decision, members of the general public did not have the legal protection guaranteed by state shield laws enjoyed by credentialed journalists.
The court decision, in part, reads:
"Changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw. The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status."
Although this decision does not clarify the much-debated discussion on who counts as "the press," it does state that freedom of the press and speech guaranteed in the First Amendment no longer just apply to salaried reporters. More...
No comments |
Archive Link
June 24, 2011
Earlier this month, the Federal Communications Commission
issued a report on the state of journalism in the technological age. The year-long study is based on interviews with 600 journalists, scholars and industry leaders. Among its many findings is that newsrooms are no longer equipped to cover local and state governments.
The report blames the shrinking of the newsroom for many of the problems facing journalism. The FCC study showed that newspapers and TV news networks across the nation have halved the staff they had in the 1980s. And those reporters are now forced to produce in “the hamster wheel,” where reporters must rush to tell the news without time or resources to dig deeper. According to the FCC, reporters “have less time to discover the stories lurking in the shadows or to unearth the information that powerful institutions want to conceal.”
One of the recommendations made by the FCC is a state-based version of C-SPAN. This STATE-SPAN would provide wall-to-wall coverage of local government and allow the public to hear the debates and see the votes coming from their state capitols. Although this would increase access, it remains to be seen if the public is interested in this. For STATE-SPAN, who would explain why a state or local legislative action matters? Veteran journalists know that most major decisions are made behind the scenes, long before an issue comes before a council or legislature.
The other big question is who would fund this venture? The cable television industry funds C-SPAN as a public service, but who could step up to provide such access in all fifty states?
More...
No comments |
Archive Link
May 20, 2011
If your typical day begins with coffee while perusing online newspaper, you may want to protect your credit card.
This is because as of March 2011, it will cost you up to $35 a month to peruse the New York Times. But the Times is not the only publication investing in an online paywall as an attempt to generate desperately needed revenue. Currently only a handful of news organizations charge for online content, including The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times and Newsday.
But is this a necessary evil for newspapers to survive or just a costly mistake that will increase popularity of free news sites? And is charging for newspapers a guaranteed way to increase viewership, revenue and advertisements?
Not at Newsday.
Long Island's daily paper spent roughly $4 million to redesign and relaunch its site charging online readers $5 a week, or $260 a year, to get total access to news. In three months only 35 people signed up. Newsday's free Web traffic nosedived, and advertising revenue decreased.
The $4 million that Newsday spent is chump change compared to the reported $40 million New York Times allocated to set up its new paywall.
A factor behind Newsday's problem is the popularity of free news sites and blogs. In a major media market like Washington D.C. or New York City, a variety of newspapers cover the same geographic area and news. If the New York Times is charging for content but the New York Post is not, what is to say that the frequent former NYTimes.com reader won't turn to the NYPost.com for free news?
Hundreds of news blogs like Drudge and Huffington Post populate their sites with breaking news and analysis. If online news consumers get stuck behind pay walls, they can search for articles from free news sources.
More traditional newspapers look to investigative stories from non-profit news organizations to publish at no cost. However, the same news story written by Texas Watchdog picked up by the Dallas Morning News and Houston Chronicle is available free on TexasWatchdog.org. As more newspapers use this free content from non-profit journalists, papers that charge will increasingly overlap quality content with those that don't.
A website charging news consumers is not only costly to the readers but to the newspapers. Newsday's $4 million redesign has provided a mere $9,000 in revenue. Not many newspapers in this current environment that can risk losing millions of dollars. The current numbers are still out for the New York Times paywall but with $40 million spent, they are going to have to draw a significant audience to recoup their costs.
And let's not forget that a March 2010 Project for Excellence in Journalism survey reported that 82% of people with favorite news sites said they'd find somewhere else free to find their news if they started asking for payments. Of the more than 2,000 people survey by Pew only 19% said that would pay for online news. More...
No comments |
Archive Link
February 11, 2011
A study released last month by
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that the Internet is closing in on television as the main avenue for most Americans to get their news.
According to Pew, 41% of adults say they get most of their news about national and international news from the Internet, this up 17 points from 2007. 66% say that television is still their main source of national and international news but that is down from 74% three years ago and 82% in 2002.
This study also compared generational differences among news consumers and found that the Internet is the primary source of news for people younger than 30. Although not surprising, this is the first time that Internet has topped television news in any Pew study. In fact, since 2007, the number of 18 to 29 year olds citing the Internet as their main source for news has nearly doubled, from 34% to 65%.
This study, as well as so many other recent surveys, continues to drive home the fact that the ways Americans get their news has changed dramatically over the last decade. And, although this may be seen as the beginning of the end to print newspapers and television news, this isn't a bad thing for the future of our country.
The various opportunities and platforms that Americans have to obtain news can improve democracy by ensuring a better-informed and aware public.
More...
No comments |
Archive Link
October 28, 2010
Howard Kurtz, Peter Goodman, Jim VandeHei, and Richard Johnson are just a few of the many reporters voluntarily exiting the legacy media to join online news ventures.
While many are scratching their heads wondering why these and other talented reporters are leaving the perceived luxurious lifestyle of the traditional media, those who work in the journalism industry have come to realize that online news ventures provide great opportunity to grow as a reporter and work on the cutting edge of journalism. In fact, increasingly, straight-shooting journalists are leaving the newsroom and joining online journalism organizations that provide journalists the opportunity to investigate the news and reemerge as the beat reporters from yesteryear.
The mass exodus from the traditional media comes at a time when the newspaper industry is struggling. Figures released this week by the Audit Bureau of Circulations show average daily circulation fell 5 percent in the April-September period, compared with the same period a year earlier. A March 2010 report from the Pew Research Center's annual Project for Excellence in Journalism showed that 2009 was a devastating year for the traditional news media. Among Pew’s findings were that newspapers currently spend $1.6 billion less annually on reporting and editing than they did ten years ago and over the last three years 15,000 full-time reporting and editing jobs were lost.
And while newspaper circulations and ad revenues are plummeting, a June 2010 Pew Report found that roughly a third (34%) of the public say they went online for news and 44% of Americans say they got news through one or more internet or mobile digital source. Both of these statistics are considerably higher than those who said they turned to their local newspaper for their news coverage.
However, the growth in popularity of online news is only one of the many reasons why reporters are leaving traditional media outlets for an online news project.
At many of the legacy media outlets, reporters feel quite limited due to orders coming from the top down, with very little collaboration. The immeasurable levels of bureaucracy that a reporter endures at a tradition media operation to get his or her idea heard were not only a burden but deterred creativity. Online journalism, particularly in a small organization, means very little bureaucracy and more innovation. It means being able to collaborate and communicate with everyone in the organization. And that leads to more ideas for stories and better journalism. More...
No comments |
Archive Link
August 12, 2010
Recent articles and opinion pages have lambasted what many are calling the "watering-down of press credentials." They claim that the more people that obtain press credentials, the
less influential press credentials are to the legacy media. But, those who
push to increase restrictions on press credentials are in denial of the massive decline in traditional journalism.
The statistics are staggering in the newspaper and journalism business. Every day reporters at media outlets are being laid off and resources are being cut. This is leaving entire communities without local news coverage and without the knowledge they need to be informed citizens.
Where this drastic decline is showing its repercussions is in city halls, courthouses and state capitols around the nation. For whatever reason, it seems that among the first beats to go at newspapers are state and local government reporters. With the decreasing media presence, there are fewer journalists working to keep the public aware of actions of their elected officials. There are fewer watchful eyes keeping bureaucrats and elected officials accountable.
And while there is no one covering the meetings and hearings, and poring over public records, there are people forming to take on these stories. However, these non-profit reporters, citizen journalists and bloggers are often being shown the cold shoulder and being denied credentials because they don’t have a business card from a newspaper or television station
More...
1 comment |
Archive Link
July 8, 2010
When your cell phone breaks or your computer crashes you no longer expect to speak to a call center in the United States. Numerous companies have outsourced parts of their business operations to contractors in other countries in an effort to improve their bottom line and increase productivity. Regardless of the public perception of outsourcing jobs, there can be financial benefits. However, a domestic form of outsourcing now is reaching the struggling news industry. It was the topic of a recent Washington Post column by Howard Kurtz.
In The age of journalistic outsourcing, Kurtz argues that while traditional print media struggle, new journalism organizations, mostly non-profits, are “giving the restless and the jobless a second lease on life.” But why has it taken so long for the legacy media to realize the untapped potential of online non-profit organizations?
Many online non-profit news organizations have been around for decades. They produce quality investigative articles about a range of topics. They have been responsible for breaking news, exposing scandal and reporting stories traditional media miss. A new non-profit journalism organization seems to be appearing daily, and with that comes innovative reporting and a new approach to journalism. More...
No comments |
Archive Link