Industry must accept bloggers’ rights

In this world of convergence, the line between journalist and blogger is continually distorted. On Jan. 17, a federal appeals court made the line even more obscure when it ruled that bloggers are afforded the same protections as journalists in cases of defamation, according to Politico.

The case involved Oregon-based blogger Crystal Cox, who was initially denied First Amendment protection after being sued by Obsidian Finance Group for accusing the company of tax fraud on her blog — a claim later proven to be false. Because the courts determined Cox was not a journalist, she was not afforded shelter behind the First Amendment in defamation cases. As a result, a jury awarded Obsidian $2.5 million in damages.

That was in 2011. Today, the courts stand behind the idea that journalists do not have to be associated with institutional media groups, such as The New York Times or Washington Post.

This decision is not the first ruled in favor of the journalist. In early 2013, a New Jersey court ruled that bloggers qualify for protection under the state’s shield law, according to the Business Law News.

Yet with these recent decisions, the high courts have ushered in the new era of media rights, after years of relying on outdated rules to bring sense to modern cases. The Internet and social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook have revolutionized the work journalists do and mediums through which they do them.

Some argue that providing shield law protection to non-affiliated journalists will dilute and corrupt the institution of journalism. Though it is true that there must be standards for journalists, as there are standards for professionals in any trade, excluding shield laws from bloggers is not the solution. The industry should be excited to include them.

The impact of bloggers has already been felt and surely will continue to grow as the daily presence of the Internet does. Bloggers have helped breathe life back into the industry while simultaneously revolutionizing and recreating it with their multimedia skills. Barring them from the same protection afforded to journalists at legacy institutions will only stifle the industry.

Judge Andrew Hurwitz, who ruled in favor of Cox, wrote that distinctions no longer matter. Hurwitz wrote, “The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities … As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable.”

The change in journalism is occurring, and bloggers are now legally along for the ride too. When shield laws were originally enacted in the 1970s to protect journalists from legal retributions for doing their job, there was no Gawker or YouTube. Yet because they are now an ever-present element of society, we cannot ignore their influence on the industry.

The Internet has expanded the role of the journalist and, proportionally, the laws protecting journalists should grow. With social media essentially available to anyone with a smartphone and Wi-Fi today, tradition has — at times reluctantly — bowed to the trends. As so too should the journalism industry when it comes to definitions of “journalist.” If the blogger is willing to follow the same rules of the game as a journalist, then there is no reason not to widen the playing field. Journalists are never afraid of the additional competition, right?

 

Jordyn Holman is a sophomore majoring in print and digital journalism.