« Abuse by the Little Guys |
Main
| ICG Wins Back Its Listing »
March 05, 2005
Headlines Lie: No One Is Protected
Posted by Dana Blankenhorn
Bloggers not protected by Constitution, says Apple. That's the headline in EarthTimes over a story stating a judge ordered several online sites to hand over the names of their anonymous sources.
Even well-meaning blogs like BoingBoing get it wrong. In Apple case, court says bloggers' sources not protected is their headline. (I think they're copying a San Jose Mercury-News headline here.)
The first headline is a lie and the second is misleading. (But the picture, from the University of Houston in Clear Lake, is really cool, don't you think?)
Fact is, no journalists have that protection. Didn't these people read the result of the Judith Miller case?
No journalist has the right to protect anonymous sources. But all journalists have a responsibility to protect them.
Those who protect such sources, who are willing to go to jail for them after they promise to protect sources, and who do in fact go to jail under court order, without revealing their sources...those people are journalists. The others are not.
And I don't care how much money you make, or what your so-called employer says you are. If you're not willing to go to jail to protect a promise you have made to a source, you're not a journalist.
Period.
Comments (3)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Copyright | Journalism | blogging | ethics | personal
- RELATED ENTRIES
- › The Legend of Dennis Hayes
- › Evolution Changes Its Mind (Again)
- › Welcome to 1966
- › What Must Craigslist Do?
- › No Such Thing as Free WiFi
- › The Internet As A Political Issue
- › Google Images Ruled Illegal
- › Fall of Radio Shack
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. Bryan Price on March 5, 2005 10:02 PM writes...
I was wondering when somebody was actually going to bring this matter up. Keeping sources private isn't truly a right. I understand why it sounds like a good policy, but the fact that anybody can now claim to be a journalist (even alleged prostitutes have gained access to the White House), brings up more questions and issues.
I also see that this whole thing is producing bad PR for Apple. Everybody was throwing around the word podcasts, and all of a sudden I'm seeing quite a few bloggers refer to this now as blogcasting. Apple will probably enjoy a legal victory in this matter, but the downfall of such an action will more than erase any kind of perceived gain from the legal action.
Permalink to Comment2. PXLated on March 6, 2005 03:23 PM writes...
I've never been clear on just what protection "journalists" have if any. Either way, I think the larger news organizations have a monetary advantage in the fact that they can fight a long battle (unless it's a legal assault by the govt. with unlimited time and funds) rather than legal advantages. It will be interesting to see if these sites do in fact act like "real" journalists. Possible jail time makes one re-think things :-)
Permalink to CommentBryan...
I personally doubt this will hurt Apple at all. The vast majority of people out there just aren't paying attention and if Apple wins will just assume Apple was right.
Blogcasting...have seen that also but it really isn't that many, just the few of the disgruntled. It's actually what it probably should have been called in the first place but it won't change. It's gone too far, gotten way too much publicity and too many sites would have to change their names :-)
3. Todd on March 6, 2005 04:25 PM writes...
Apparently California has a strong "Shield Law" that specifies the rights that reporters have when it comes to guarding their sources. I believe the ruling in the Apple case has to take that law into account.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001678.htm
New Jersey has a similar law. So, it's more a point of law than is suggested here, I'm thinking.
Permalink to Comment