The real difference between mere "blogging" and "journalism" is a functional one.
And here is the test. What does the opinionated blogger do when the story goes against them?
Analysts cover the story. They may or may not admit to error, but they write through the pain. The real journalists among them put their feelings about the event completely aside, they go into the winner's locker room, they get the quotes, they describe what happened, and (based on the facts they gathered) they help the reader or viewer understand what may happen next.
The advocates drift away. They change the subject. They're full of "oh, yeah" because they were never in the fight to begin with, just in the crowd.
There are many people who are paid to do journalism who are, in fact, merely doing advocacy today. They're the columnists who write about something else when events go the other way. I find such behavior all over the blogosphere -- liberals who were quiet through November 2004, conservatives who are now silent on the Administration's scandals. I also find it in the nation's biggest newspapers, and on the TV news.
Advocates wait for the talking points, or they change the subject and keep attacking rather than dealing with what anyone else may be saying.
Analysts admit defeat, and try to see what is next.
Journalists act like they don't care, and that's a good thing. They look for facts, they write up what they find, and they move on.
The problem with any federal shield law is that these roles are all mixed-up within the journalism profession. Judith Miller was an advocate. Robert Novak is an advocate. James Carville is an advocate. Advocates need no more shield than the First Amendment.
Journalists do need a shield, when they're practicing journalism. But the shield must be limited. Demanding a shield, or even putting one up, when it's clear that your source was lying, or merely advocating, helps no one. The purpose of the shield is to protect real whistle-blowers, people coming up with hard facts that the public needs but which might destroy the source to reveal.
It doesn't matter whether any of this is going on online or offline, through instant publishing or a printing press. It's the function of protecting the search for facts that needs protecting.
When we lose that, when facts are kept from from the public because those who know the truth are intimidated, then we're no longer a free people, even if the people who lost protection are "merely bloggers."
But when we claim those same protections for mere advocacy, or even analysis, we're doing everyone a disservice, even if we're at the most famous newspaper in the world.
ThinkSecret deserved the shield.
Judith Miller never did.
Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for over 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the "Interactive Age Daily" for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age, and dozens of other publications over the years.
1. TomCS on November 11, 2005 01:26 PM writes...
One of the best things I've seen in a blog about blogging. You're close to spot on: in this case the medium is not the message.
The blogosphere is a publishing medium and no more: you can use it for any number of purposes, from self-regarding posturing through the sharing of thoughtful commentary to the delivery of significant but hidden facts, political pampleteering and advertising/PR. With its capacity to offer anonymity to bloggers, it is perhaps closest to 18th century pampleteering, before the press had established itself as a cheap and readily accessible forum. (This is I think an awkward parallel for US observers, given for example the mythic status of the Federalist Papers; but not all pampleteering was as substantive or serious.)
The key point you make is I think the link between a concept of "real" or "pure" journalism and the need to encourage and then protect whistle-blowers. This is perhaps the "purest" form of journalism, and was never as frequent as you suggest. Nor would I agree that you can dismiss as non-journalism a wide range of other things that appear in the press. At a less elevated level, legitimate journalism involves the competent analysis and presentation of information in a user friendly way: I could watch C-Span or the BBC Parliament channel, but value the processing (and selection) in the Congressional or parliamentary reports in the Post or the Times (NY or London). We instinctively know where to draw the key line here, between professionally processed material and recycled PR - part of the reason why so much of the IT press deserves our contempt.
That said, "pure" journalism is about telling the public the bad things that the powerful wish to hide from us, and that requires protection for that sort of journalist - but more important for the whistle blower. Shield laws help to obscure but do not protect the whistle blower in any significant way, as far as I am aware. Do you know of any cases where a significant whistle-blower has been effectively protected (if not rewarded) for their public bravery? Would "Deep Throat' have been protected if his identity had emerged a few months after Watergate? Shield laws are trivial if there is open season on whistle-blowers. What would a useful "whistle-blower statute" need to contain?
You are therefore right about Miller. With respect, however, you are wrong about Thinksecret: there was no public interest served in leaking that information. That opens another can of worms, because both whistle-blowing and journalism must face a public interest test to deserve special protection, and providing a good statutory base for that will not be easy. It will need to cover both property rights in harmless information, and an appropriate definition of national security interests: both areas have legitimate secrets which journalism is not entitled to reveal.
TomCS
Permalink to Comment2. Jesse Kopelman on November 11, 2005 03:05 PM writes...
Tom, two thoughts:
If you have an effective shield law, doesn't that also protect the whistle blower. After all, if the source is never revealed, he can never be persecuted.
Why would something have to be in the public interest to deserve the shield? Why not have a shield that can only be taken down if it is in the public interest to do so? Do we really want to live in a world that requires a lawyer's consultation before we take any action?
Permalink to Comment