This week, an Oregon Federal court ruled that bloggers or any type of new media journalists do not qualify for the same protection rights as journalists working for a more traditional news entity (ie: newspapers, radio, TV stations). This ruling developed from a Oregon defamation case involving an investigative blogger, Crystal Cox, who refused to share her source, believing that she was covered by the Shield Law.

Each state has it’s own flavor of Shield Law, some including new media and blogs and others strictly protecting “traditional” news sources. The court’s judge, Marco Hernandez, ruled that Oregon’s Shield Law solely protects these traditional sources of media, and added that Cox lacked substantial journalism education and “any credential of proof of any affiliation with a recognized news entity.”

Curious, as that the Oregon’s shield law itself states:

No person connected with, employed by or engaged in any medium of communication to the public shall be required by … a judicial officer … to disclose, by subpoena or otherwise … [t]he source of any published or unpublished information obtained by the person in the course of gathering, receiving or processing information for any medium of communication to the public[.]

The whole blogger vs. journalist debate is a hot topic in journalism school seminars — let me tell you what. Personally, I could never come to a succinct end-all point to where the credibility starts and the subjectivity of a “citizen journalist” ends. It really seems to be a case-by-case situation, which isn’t what the Oregon (or any) courts want to hear.

So! I talked with Oakland freelance journalist and witty cartoonist, Susie Cagle, about the issue. Cagle has been avidly reporting Occupy Oakland happenings for different publications and her own blog, only to be arrested last month at Occupy for not holding “legitimate” press credentials. Whatever that means.

“When I told my arresting officer that I was press, I was first told, “We’ll take care of that in a minute.” That next minute turned into 15 hours in two different jails,” wrote Cagle in an article describing her experience.

MORE ON HER STORY AFTER THE JUMP

A Columbia Journalism school grad, Cagle is frustrated by the blatant disrespect and distrust she gets while on the ground at Occupy, covering important issues that she says most local news entities miss.

“It’s crazy that during this national civil unrest, now is the time that the nation can’t protect journalists,” she says. Cagle also notes how a plethora of “legitimate” media sources provide illegitimate, unbalanced information. “Incredibly bad reporting can come out of credible news sources.”

On top of that, she says, it’s becoming a class issue, where folks who can’t afford J-school or to take unpaid internships loose “credibility.” Instead of base credibility off of a journalism major or assign some kind of journalistic license, she says, it’s time for journalists to stand up for themselves.

“In this economic climate for media, it’s so important that we as journalists learn to build our own credibility,” Cagle says. “Now of all times we need to provide a path for these journalists. it’s the only way.”

Alex Zielinski is a former News Editor for the Portland Mercury. She's here to tell stories about economic inequities, cops, civil rights, and weird city politics that you should probably be paying attention...

8 replies on “OR Court Rules Bloggers ≠ Journalists”

  2. I worked for one a twice-weekly newspaper in the area. The pay was lousy, so was the content much of the time, but I enjoyed thumbing through all the police reports for some of the smaller cities (not Portland)… something the ordinary citizens (and bloggers) are not allowed to do. The dispatcher would just hand over a huge binder full of juicy stuff, and I’d write down the things that made me chuckle and/or wince the most. And what’s the point of being allowed into executive sessions and then expected not to report on what you hear? That was always uncomfortable.

  3. The Oregon case and the the Occupy Oakland issue are two completely different animals. I don’t know anything about the Oakland issue or why she was arrested (probably trespass – refusal to obey an officer whatever).

    I read some of the articles and various court rulings from the Oregon case. The Oregon case is a civil case for defamation. The “blogger” has something like 20 or 30 domain websites with varying names all targeting the one individual who sued her for defamation – he was a bankruptcy trustee appointed by the bankruptcy court to liquidate a real estate Ponzi scheme headquartered in Bend so that creditors could receive some sort of distribution. The blogger made all sorts of accusations (trustee bribing the media, the court, that he was convicted of tax fraud and that he even hired someone to kill her and in some great Glenn Beck-ness – she was just putting the question out there). From what I read, if you google the trustee’s name, you pretty much only come up with her websites for the first few pages. In all of her postings, there was something like one comment made.

    The trustee alleged that she made a plethora of defamatory statements. Before the trial even began, the Court ruled for the Blogger that most were merely her opinion – and therefore not actionable (you can’t sue someone for stating their opinion). The ruling that has everyone in a tizzy is misunderstood.

    The excerpt relates to whether the blogger could be compelled to reveal her source under Oregon’s Shield law. The part of the shield law at issue prevents a journalist from being compelled by the courts to reveal their sources. The court ruled she didn’t meet the definition in the statute (which could easily be changed to include blogs) for that purpose. Moreover, the Court went on to point out that even if the Shield law applied, it has an exception when the action is a civil action for defamation against the journalist like this (and by my read, the exception would apply equally to an action against an Oregonian reporter, Ch. 12, reporter, CNN reporter being sued for defamation).

    Also at issue was the burden of proof that the plainitff had to establish and the type of damages he could recover. Where someone suing for defamation is not a “public figure,” public figures, but the person being sued was “media,” the plaintiff would have to prove that defendant was negligent in publishing the challenged article rather than just wrong.

    Curiously, the single source for the blogger’s claims about the trustee in this case came from the daughter of one of the founders of the Ponzi scheme who (the father) was indicted on conspiracy charges and misuse of millions of dollars of investors/customers money) this summer. http://www.ethicscomplaint.com/2010/03/ste… (this is also the blogger’s website).

  4. “Each state has it’s own flavor of Shield Law…”

    *its

    Also, if you’re trying to give credence to Cagle as a legitimate journlist, you should at least stet her incorrect use of quotation marks and poor capitalization. It’s kind of embarassing, really.

    Furthermore, Crystal Cox is a joke. She owns over 400 domain names, all of them pointing to her rants and with incendiary names like “ObsidianFinanceSucks.com”

    And did you actually look at any of the stuff Crystal Cox wrote about Obsidian Finance and Kevin Padrick? A pretty clear case of libel.

    She even tried to shake down Padrick by offering to take down the posts and websites attacking him and his company for $2,500 a month.

    Not saying this isn’t an important issue, but making Crystal Cox the poster child of it gives real citizen journalists and bloggers a bad name.

  5. As far as I can tell, this case was about defamation and the “journalist” just making shit up. If it wasn’t, I would be much more concerned.

Comments are closed.