Skip to main content

View Diary: New Jersey judge recognizes bloggers are journalists (47 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Much appreciated, Adam. (0+ / 0-)

    As for this load of fresh manure:

    They point to the following as evidence that Ms. Renna should not be considered a journalist: (1) Ms. Renna's use of profanities in her written blog and on videos posted on her site, (2) Ms. Renna's failure to publicly identify herself as a journalist, (3) Ms. Renna's frequent self-identification as a "watchdog" and "citizen activist," (4) spelling and grammar mistakes contained in the blog, (5) a single instance of plagiarism, (6) Mrs. Renna's failure to issue corrections or to indicate when content in the blog has been changed or modified, (7) alleged bias from Ms. Renna's husband's county employment termination and his subsequent freeholder candidacy, (8) Mrs. Renna's participation in local politics as a Republican Committee person in Cranford, and finally (8) Ms. Renna's failure to disclose such alleged bias to her readers....
    1. There's no law anywhere saying a journalist can't cuss in print. It's kind of a convention merely. An every journalist I know (and I work in the field) has been known to cuss.

    In case ya don't believe me, I think we can find some cuss words in some of Molly Ivins'  books.

    2. That's a stupid argument. They're paying their lawyers too much. Why don't they cut to the chase and demand a diploma from, say, Northwestern? "Journalist" is merely a handy label for reporters, fotogs, editors, and others. I could as easily demand that only people who cover the soul-destroying county and town government meetings are legitimate "journalists" ...

    3. These are not mutually exclusive categories. Beyond that, our rather generic web publishing program has an assortment of about 20 flags for articles. Like "breaking" or "feature." One of them is ... Yes ... watchdog.

    4. This contention is best answered with a common two word Anglo-Saxon obscenity. Like they know jack about this topic.

    5. Obviously they don't read the NY Times.

    6. Quite a few newspapers don't do that anymore. Guess all the employees aren't working in the news business.

    7. Don't care.

    8. Not a journalistic best practice, but I have some local newspapers from the late 1850s for them to read. Pro and anti-slavery. Whig and Democrat and whatnot. Each one owned by a local, prominent ... LAWYER.

    9. You can be a journalist with a bias. It's best to disclose. It's not mandatory. And it's even more damaging when you proclaim you're ... Fair and Balanced.

    Beyond which, readers are not dumb. They can detect bias.

    If that's the best these lawyers could do, I pity their future clients.

    Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

    by dadadata on Thu Apr 18, 2013 at 05:00:30 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site