Public Eye
October 19, 2007 12:56 PM

A Journalist? Says Who?

(CBS)
I’ve discussed in this space – though in the light and frothy context of inappropriate photos posted online – how once something is on the Internet, it’s in the public domain.

The same goes for legal rulings.

In a fascinating instance, a court’s opinion regarding torture and a coerced confession was posted online at a legal blog. According to ABAJournal.com:
A federal appeals court quickly withdrew an opinion issued yesterday in a case filed by a Sept. 11 detainee because of concerns it contained information filed under seal.

The opinion by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived a lawsuit by Egyptian student Abdullah Higazy who was detained after the attacks. Higazy claimed an FBI agent had coerced him to make a false confession.

The court was not quick enough for the blog How Appealing, which posted the opinion after a reader sent it along by e-mail. A clerk later called blog author Howard Bashman to ask him to take it down, but he has not complied.
In a conversation with the ABA website, Bashman defended himself, saying “In my role as a member of the news media, I determined that it would be inappropriate to take down my posting of the decision based on a general claim that the opinion, issued earlier in the day to the public over the Internet, referred to information contained in an appendix whose contents remained under seal."

So not only is this a case of transparency, it’s also an anecdote begging the question “What makes someone a journalist?” Bashman called himself a “member of the news media,” yet as far as this writer could tell from a few clicks, he happens to be a Pennsylvania attorney who also operates a blog.

And while I could talk to media experts or citizen journalist advocates or ask any J-school student the question, I figured I’d go right to Bashman and ask.

His thoughts?
I am paid actual money by ALM (previously known as American Lawyer Media) to write the "How Appealing" blog, and to the best of my knowledge the "How Appealing" blog is the only blog that's physically hosted at a law.com address (the same address that hosts the content of American Lawyer Magazine, The National Law Journal, the law.com newswire, and American Lawyer Media's regional publications).

For the two years before ALM entered into a contract with me to host my blog, my blog was hosted on the web site of Legal Affairs magazine, which also paid me to host the blog. I also write a weekly column on appellate matters for American Lawyer Media's law.com and have done so since January 2006.

While I certainly am a part-time journalist (in that the bulk of my earnings come from my law practice), I do consider myself to be a member of the news media when reporting on court rulings at the "How Appealing" blog.
Does readership define a journalist? Bashman added in a follow-up e-mail that he gets nearly 10,000 readers on “a typical weekday.” Does receiving money for writing make one a journalist, as Bashman does?

As far as this writer is concerned, Bashman fits the bill. But where is the line drawn? This isn’t a classroom discussion, a distinction without a difference, as we enter murky legal waters and a Federal Shield Law is considered on Capitol Hill.

And another thing: Just why did the court decide to withdraw its opinion? The public statement said something about sensitive information. But then why post it online and make the decision look curious, like a legal do-over? Do we need to call in Miss New Jersey to advise federal judges?
Tags:
Howard Bashman ,
Abdullah Higazy ,
How Appealing ,
Blogs
Topics:
4th Estate Debate
Add a Comment
by p_lukasiak October 22, 2007 12:17 PM EDT
In terms of our rights to gather and disseminate information, each and everyone of us is a "journalist". The first amendment rights guaranteeing freedom of the press refer not to the news media, but merely to the means of disseminating information and opinion. The wording is clear: ''Congress shall make no law...; abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;...'' And the use of semicolons denote that "speech" and "press" are equivalent. Under the first amendment EVERYONE can SAY what they want, and PUBLISH what they want, and be protected.

The for-profit media seems to go to great efforts to obscure this fact, and pretend that the First Amendment refers to the ''news media''. One has to assume that this is motivated solely in the interest of greed; maintaining a monopoly on rights regarding the widescale dissemination of information and opinion means more cash for big media.

Any shield law that narrowly defines the term ''journalist'' to include only people and organizations that disseminate information for payment isn''t worth the electrons it takes to transmit it. A shield law should leave "journalist" undefined (or defined as someone who gathers and disseminates information and opinion) so that the press freedoms enshrined in the constitution remain available to the individual citizens they were designed for.
Reply to this comment
by tomtraubert-2009 October 19, 2007 6:33 PM EDT
From Wikipedia:
"Journalism is a discipline of gathering, writing and reporting news, and more broadly it includes the process of editing and presenting the news articles. Journalism applies to various media, including but not limited to newspapers, magazines, radio, and television."


Isn''t it more important to protect the act of journalism than to focus on protecting people who get paid to write what may or may not be considered journalism but who call themselves journalists? Many "journalists" -- and I mean exactly what you think I mean by putting the words in quotes -- are no more worthy of protection for their work product than Al Capone. Tim Russert comes to mind, among others.

Receiving money for writing? Should a pamphleteer be worthy of protection or is employment by Viacom a prerequisite for protection these days?

Readership? Who''s going to set those limits? Is 10 people reading your stuff sufficient? Or does it have to be at least 100 people?
Reply to this comment

About Public Eye

Description for Public Eye