blogging, trade secrets & the first amendment
We see stories all the time about blogging and how much of it is or should be protected by one of the most sacred and beloved pieces of our constitution, the First Amendment.
I don't worry about myself much, because I break the #1 rule of good blogging by not having a theme that the majority of my posts revolve around. Steady readership is sort of hit-or-miss and I haven't established myself as the pinnacle of, say, rock music news online. But there are a lot of blogs out there that are very, very specific, and have developed into legitimate sources of information for various aspects of our culture; politics, technology, baking, whatever.
Looks like an Apple insider leaked some info and it appeared on a couple of blogs. Now Apple's all a-flutter about their trade secrets. I really like this article in the San Francisco Chronicle. It shows both sides of the argument pretty fairly, and the quotes it uses are relatively well though out on both sides. Apple does have a right to protect their trade secrets. Apple should look to themselves first to locate the source of the leak. One of my favorite quotes in the article: "Every new form of media in the last 200 years has gone through a similar rite of passage. Blogs (like mine) are as valid a form of 'press' as the pamphlet was during the American Revolution.".
What I really love about the article is that the majority of its quotes were culled from blogs and internet forums. To me that just emphasizes the validation that blogging can be construed as a form of journalism.
The problem now becomes that journalists are trained in some ethical behaviours which the average blogger isn't. (I took Newswriting in college. Even that class covered journalism and ethics). The average journalist probably wouldn't have just gone and revealed trade secrets, but may have contacted Apple about being one of the first to break the story when they were ready to go public. It makes the story theirs and establishes them as a primary contact person in the media.
Blogging, in my eyes, is a form of media. It's also, to paraphrase Jon Stewart, anonymous heresay. This guy speaks to both sides of the issue and makes a great point without coming right out and saying it: consider your sources when you read or hear something and use your own damn brain for once.
I don't worry about myself much, because I break the #1 rule of good blogging by not having a theme that the majority of my posts revolve around. Steady readership is sort of hit-or-miss and I haven't established myself as the pinnacle of, say, rock music news online. But there are a lot of blogs out there that are very, very specific, and have developed into legitimate sources of information for various aspects of our culture; politics, technology, baking, whatever.
Looks like an Apple insider leaked some info and it appeared on a couple of blogs. Now Apple's all a-flutter about their trade secrets. I really like this article in the San Francisco Chronicle. It shows both sides of the argument pretty fairly, and the quotes it uses are relatively well though out on both sides. Apple does have a right to protect their trade secrets. Apple should look to themselves first to locate the source of the leak. One of my favorite quotes in the article: "Every new form of media in the last 200 years has gone through a similar rite of passage. Blogs (like mine) are as valid a form of 'press' as the pamphlet was during the American Revolution.".
What I really love about the article is that the majority of its quotes were culled from blogs and internet forums. To me that just emphasizes the validation that blogging can be construed as a form of journalism.
The problem now becomes that journalists are trained in some ethical behaviours which the average blogger isn't. (I took Newswriting in college. Even that class covered journalism and ethics). The average journalist probably wouldn't have just gone and revealed trade secrets, but may have contacted Apple about being one of the first to break the story when they were ready to go public. It makes the story theirs and establishes them as a primary contact person in the media.
Blogging, in my eyes, is a form of media. It's also, to paraphrase Jon Stewart, anonymous heresay. This guy speaks to both sides of the issue and makes a great point without coming right out and saying it: consider your sources when you read or hear something and use your own damn brain for once.
posted by Silver Turtle at
9:13 AM
5 Comments:
I think that calling anything resembling a weblog "journalistic" is too strong. Sure, some are written by journalists and reporters, but as a general rule I consider them more like the bum on the street corner handing out pamphlets than anything else. "Self-publishing" is a better term, without the connotations of journalistic principles.
By
Eric B., at 10:16 AM
Excellent point about the conduct of bloggers. It makes a lot of sense that a blogger breaking a news story, particularly in the case of Apple, should contact the relevant people for a comment or quote.
What's more, blogs aren't becoming a new media source of news, they already are. It’s only a matter of time before the judicial system catches up.
Recently in California, A superior court judge ruled that blogs couldn’t hide behind 1st amendment and California shield laws. It’s my opinion that this ruling will not last for long.
So let us both assume that the ruling is overturned. We still have a problem with blogs. A blog can be created by anyone, anywhere in the world. That means that a blogger can be as false or inflammatory as he or she likes, and not even come close to abiding by any forms of journalistic professionalism. How do you protect a company such as apple then? It could be argued that blogs that are not honest are weeded out as soon as their true nature is revealed, which is legitimate. But when has that stopped people from doing damage to other companies/ organizations/ individuals?
Second, if the ruling is overturned, does that mean that all blogs that say anything about the news or have any opinion about the world are subject to the ethics and conduct of journalism? If yes, how could you possibly enforce that on the Internet?
having said that, it seems to me that the only relevant blog at this point, is the blog that has an extremely high number of readers. As such it will be much easier for federal and state agencies to deal with those sites because of their popularity.
all in all, if blogs and bloggers want to be treated like the news source that they are, they have to starting acting like it.
By
Thinkpadius, at 10:19 AM
I think there's a vast difference between different types of blogs. In this matter, the most relevant criteria for discerning between them is probably, as Mr Romano points out, the number of readers.
Nobody cares about a blog with only a small amount of visitors, and the government shouldn't either.
The matter may be a bit complicated when a tiny blog suddenly *becomes* massively popular by publishing a news story.
By
Koala Mentala, at 4:51 PM
Everyone makes really good, valid points. I think that all of us want and believe we should be alloted free speech. But not everyone that blogs wants to be considered news.
By
Silver Turtle, at 7:28 PM
My butt is inchin' I dont know what's wrong, I took a shower....can I help you? Yo smart guy, I am the manager!!! Ya Done B!!! excuse me sista, I gotta take a shit and BTW, if the computers are not down, they should be....
By
Anonymous, at 7:15 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home