Posted on 12/10/2011 3:42:19 AM PST by marktwain
“Montana blogger is not journalist,” Jeff Barnard of the Associated Press reported Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Marco A. Hernández ruled that “investigative blogger” Crystal L. Cox “was not a journalist and cannot claim the protections afforded to mainstream reporters and news outlets.”
Per Alex Dobuzinskis of Reuters:
Hernandez found Cox failed to present evidence that she had any media credentials or affiliation with a “recognized news entity,” or that she had checked her facts or tried to contact the other side to “get both sides of the story.”
“Montana blogger is not journalist,” Jeff Barnard of the Associated Press reported Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Marco A. Hernández ruled that “investigative blogger” Crystal L. Cox “was not a journalist and cannot claim the protections afforded to mainstream reporters and news outlets.”
Per Alex Dobuzinskis of Reuters:
Hernandez found Cox failed to present evidence that she had any media credentials or affiliation with a “recognized news entity,” or that she had checked her facts or tried to contact the other side to “get both sides of the story.”
“Most newspapers and media companies do not subject reader comments posted online to the same journalistic standards they apply to their own reporters,” he writes.
In terms of “journalistic standards,” one need only look at the “Authorized Journalist” archives compiled at Gun Rights Examiner and at The War on Guns blog to note how often the “professionals fall short of any credible standards of knowledge and balance on the issues of guns and gun rights. Ignorance, bias, parroting of agendas, deliberately not covering stories, gun control advocacy, and in general acting like government lapdogs, cheerleaders and abettors, as opposed to watchdogs, have been demonstrated time and again—for years.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Excuse me, may I see your First Amendment license?
Why don’t they apply this ruling to the ignorant, mal-informed voters? /s
The other side was mexican drug cartels who behead anyone asking questions.
Anyone getting a "chicago politics" vibe from all this blackrobe squashing of any investigation of this?
Codrea ping.
Trying to shut the ‘bloggers’ down?
Judge Marco A. Hernandez
Assumed office
February 9, 2011
Appointed by Barack Obama
Shocking.
(I actually got that response from a TV network "news" representative in the 1960s.)
Just shut down the entire alphabet soup MSM plus the New York Slimes, Austin UnAmerican Stasi, etc.....
The proper term is Authorized Journolist
The question is what will the people do about a judge who attempts to quash our 1st Amendment rights? Hmmm?
Not Bad.
Government decides who is a journalist. Government decides what is a church. Government decides who can petition the government. Government decides who can peacefully assemble.
Is it any wonder we are afraid of them instead of the other way around?
The people decide what constitutes legitimate government. The ultimate trump card.
How does this tie into gunwalker? The previous story I read on FR indicated that it involved lies she told about a bankruptcy attorney.
If there is a link, I’d be interested in reading about it.
In this era of Obama Worship applying those criteria will eliminate about 90% of the mainstream reporters and established news media.
Journalism is about the only ‘profession’ that has no standard entry requirements or licensing/certification requirements.
If one looks back at the ‘media faces’ of the last 3 or 4 decades, one sees many high school and even some grade school drop-outs who became ‘journalists’ because a job in journalism had no standard entry requirements or licensing/certification requirements.
Wait until we decide who should (and should not) be an “authorized judge.”
Having the government give the MSM special priviledges is something the MSM has pushed for decades. They were all for the first amendment as long as they had a lock on the media. Now that they have some competition, not so much.U.S. District Judge Marco A. Hernández ruled that “investigative blogger” Crystal L. Cox “was not a journalist and cannot claim the protections afforded to mainstream reporters and news outlets.”
Can we examine the nomenclature "main stream media" (MSM) a bit critically, please?
- A television channel or a magazine or newspaper or radio station is a medium. Article 1 Section 8 the Constitution provides explicit congressional authority
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .The invention of high speed printing presses, the telegraph, phonographs, radio, movies, TV, the Internet, and so forth are all therefore condoned by the Constitution. Such "media" are in principle content neutral. We should have no argument against "media" of communication, as such, so railing against "the media" is really basically stupid. Therefore protection of "the freedom of . . . the press" should be understood as covering all media of communication.
- To suggest that fiction be censored, other than that parents should control content to which their children are exposed, is anathema. If lefties make good fiction writers, we will just have to live with that. So that leaves nonfiction. And again, nonfiction books don't have to be right in every particular to have some or even a lot of wisdom in them. So censoring nonfiction books is also a nonstarter, constitutionally and practically.
Any legitimate brief must therefore be directed at topical nonfiction - i.e., journalism.
- In the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, newspapers were notoriously fractiously independent, and were more like modern opinion journals than like modern newspapers. Something changed the newspapers into the homogenous "press" of today. IMHO the reason for that change is bound and gagged, and lying on our doorstep - the reason is the telegraph. The telegraph, and The Associated Press. The AP has its roots smack in the middle of the Nineteenth Century, and by the Twentieth Century it was in full flower. Meaning, that by then the economic incentives of the use of the AP had by then driven the "fractious independence" of the various newspapers into the ghetto known as the editorial page.
- The AP based its claim to objectivity on the fact that its members notoriously did not agree on much of anything - but over the course of a generation or two wire service journalism destroyed that fractiousness almost completely. What remains is the overarching self interest of journalists. The standard rules of journalism which are promoted as "objectivity" are transparently designed not for objectivity but for selling newspapers. "If it bleeds, it leads." "'Man Bites Dog,' not 'Dog Bites Man.'" "Always make your deadline." These things have nothing to do with objectivity and everything to do with protecting the journalist's job by selling newspapers. If you think about it, subjectivity - the natural tendency of anyone to see things from a self-interested point of view - is only to be expected. And while it is possible to attempt objectivity, it is not possible to know that you are being objective.
The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing . . .Notice, dear reader, not only how apt the above Adam Smith quote is to the point, but how quoting it changes the discussion from "objectivity" to wisdom. And I contend that a journalist's claim "objectivity" cannot be distinguished logically from a claim of wisdom. I would welcome a serious discussion of that point from anyone who discerns a true logical distinction. Absent any serious debate on that point, this has a very significant implication. Because a claim of superior wisdom is precisely the origin of the term, "sophistry." So when the wire service journalist claims that journalism is objective, he is engaging in sophistry. Another way of reaching the same conclusion is to note that the first action of one who is seriously attempting to be objective is to try to discern, and openly declare, any reasons why he might not be objective - and that such self-abnegation is precisely what the journalist who is claiming to be objective is not doing. Thus, we see that your "objective" wire service journalist is not even trying to be objective.It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity,
and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam Smith
- As I noted earlier, the AP based its claim to objectivity on the fact that its members notoriously did not agree on much of anything - but over the course of a generation or two wire service journalism destroyed that fractiousness almost completely. What remains is the overarching self interest of journalists. The self interest of journalists is to make journalism profitable. Profitable, and influential. Journalists "want to make a difference." Journalists can influence politicians, journalists can influence government. Thus, the bigger government is, the more influence journalism has. Journalists tell you who goes along and gets along with journalists by awarding such people positive labels, and tarring their opponents with negative labels.
Dear Reader, the Constitution is a progressive, liberal document. One of the (relatively few) enumerated powers of Congress is justified on the basis that it was expected "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts." And the mission of the Constitution. summarized in last objective listed in its preamble, is to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." So America was founded as a progressive, liberal nation. A progressive, liberal nation is not a conservative nation. Indeed, I recall a quotation in a history book I read (in the dim past) in school, in which a Briton criticized the Constitution and the government it created as "all sheet and no anchor." Yet the very people who want to preserve liberty and the opportunity for progress which liberty provides get labelled "conservative" - and the very people who would restrict oil drilling, coal mining, genetic engineering of crops, etc. are called "liberal" or "progressive." "Moderation" is a classical virtue, which the immodest people who claim to be objective use as a label for people most like themselves, who want the scope and size of government to be anything but moderate. They always want more.
The only positive label which journalists apply in politics but do not give their friends is the one they reserve soley for themselves - "objective." Unless of course one of their "liberal" friends (George Stephanopolis, poster boy) changes hats and gets a job as a journalist colleague. Then, without any change of attitude on his part, he instantaneously becomes "objective."
- The conclusion of the matter is that the government should not define "journalists" at all, but its working definition is that which journalism itself adheres to - that a journalist never questions the objectivity of any other journalist. Any law which gives special treatment to journalism's "borg" sets them apart from the people, and illegitimately establishes them as a sort of priesthood, in contravention rather than in furtherance of the intent of the First Amendment.
Guess First Amendment protections for freedom of speech apply only to “government approved” journalists.
A VERY bad precedent, and this moronic judge has made a bad mistake.
“Excuse me, may I see your First Amendment license?”
____________________________________________________
Precisely.
Can I be cited for contempt of court if I’m not directly involved in the case?
The Federal Cartel certainly has become a thing of wonder!
“Can we examine the nomenclature “main stream media” (MSM) a bit critically, please?”
“Notice, dear reader, . . . “
“I would welcome a serious discussion of that point from anyone who discerns a true logical distinction. Absent any serious debate on that point, this has a very significant implication. Because a claim of superior wisdom is precisely the origin of the term, “sophistry.” “
___________________________________________
It all sounds very erudite and “wise,” of course, but your own conceited sophistry is such a turn off I wouldn’t bother addressing your internal inconsistencies and logical errors (which are many, BTW). Instead, I’m tempted to just say, “grow up,” or “get over yourself” - and, in fact, I just did.
There are times when plain spoken, one line gut reactions serve the discussion better. This is one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.