Attacking the Fifth Estate

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.

Many forget that when a newspaper goes under, it is not only those reporters who have lost their jobs that are affected. And when a local newspaper is forced to downsize their staff and product, there is a gaping hole in their news coverage that the consumer is losing. Entire communities are left without news coverage and left without access to vital information.

Stepping up to fill the void left when a local newspaper cuts back or closes are citizen journalists. They have proven that it no longer takes press credentials or a New York Times business card to break national news. Citizen journalists have captured government scandals and discovered injustice in their state capitols. They do the same job that the “mainstream reporters” are doing without either a pay check or fancy office.

Citizen journalists are providing a valuable service to their communities. They are relentlessly searching for the truth by preserving liberty and democracy. They are doing all of this without the respect that a protected member of the media has.

Instead of penalizing citizen journalists and failing to recognize their value to the changing media world, the courts should grant them journalistic protections. Those who value news should hope that the Oregon ruling is not followed in other states.

Jason Stverak is the President of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, a leading journalism non-profit organization dedicated to providing investigative reporters and non-profit organizations at the state and local level with training, expertise, and technical support. For more information on the Franklin Center please visit www.FranklinCenterHQ.org.

Federal court ruling provides a victory for grassroots journalism

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.

The decision also acknowledges that current technological advancements have made the line between citizen journalists and the mainstream press more difficult to define. This is beneficial to individuals who produce news, as well as news consumers.

The ruling also makes it clear that those reporters who sit at the top newspapers around the nation do not have different rights then those bloggers who pull out their cell phones to record their stories. It seems that most have forgotten that even well-compensated reporters are in fact, citizen journalists, who receive a paycheck to keep the public informed.

Another object lost on the typical news consumers is that when a newspaper goes under, it is not only those reporters who have lost their jobs who are affected. Entire communities are left without news coverage and without access to vital information. Stepping up to fill the void left when a local newspaper cuts back or closes are citizen journalists. They have proved that it no longer takes press credentials or a New York Times business card to break national news. Citizen journalists have captured their local congressman in scandals and reported on the tax increase a state senator hoped no one would find out about. They do the same job that “mainstream reporters” are doing without either a paycheck or a fancy office.

Citizen journalists are doing their part to keep our government officials accountable to the people. They do this by attending a town-hall meeting and reporting on the events or taking out a cellphone and videotaping what is viewed as injustice by the police. They are preserving democracy and making their hometowns better places for their families and friends. It is a thankless service that our country cannot afford to dismiss.

By allowing citizens the protection to videotape government officials without fear of arrest and prosecution, this ruling is a victory to anyone who supports journalistic freedom. We welcome any and all citizen journalists who feel the need to take action to better their communities.

Jason Stverak is the President of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, a leading journalism non-profit organization. The Franklin Center is dedicated to providing investigative reporters and non-profit organizations at the state and local level with training, expertise, and technical support. For more information on the Franklin Center please visit www.FranklinCenterHQ.org.

FCC report details fall of state, local news but offers wrong solution

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?

Instead of beginning a risky venture like STATE-SPAN or allowing government to intervene in the journalism business, the FCC should look at new journalism initiatives that are covering local and state government effectively. Many of these organizations are nonprofit organizations operating solely online but breaking news in the mainstream media.

Online, nonprofit journalism organizations are filling a void that traditional news media no longer can. Although news organization startups are increasing, many of these nonprofits have been around for decades and are focusing on local stories. Some of the nonprofit journalism organizations serve as watchdogs for government, Wall Street and the media itself. Some serve as explanatory journalists, who have the space and time to elucidate the complex details of issues that newspapers and television cannot. But regardless of their mission, they are providing a desperately needed service to the American people.

As further proof of the strength in online journalism organizations, numerous straight-shooting, frustrated journalists are leaving traditional newsrooms and joining these online newsrooms. These organizations provide journalists the opportunity to investigate and reemerge as the news beat reporters of yesteryear. In the last year alone, Howard Kurtz, Peter Goodman, Jim VandeHei, and Richard Johnson have voluntarily exited the legacy media to join the online news arena.

The FCC is correct on many of the points made in their report. Journalism is struggling. State and local news will disappear unless more news organizations step up and begin covering that beat. We hope more organizations hear the urgent calling of this FCC report and begin producing state and local news content that will keep voters informed.

Jason Stverak is the President of the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity, which provides investigative reporters and non-profit organizations at the state and local level with training, expertise, and technical support. For more information on the Franklin Center please visit www.FranklinCenterHQ.org. The Franklin Center has two national news websites. To check out the investigative news site please visit Watchdog.org. To get the latest state capitol news please visit StateHouseNewsOnline.com.