Sunday, April 23, 2006

And Now Some Words From The Editor ...

Here are a couple of posts I have made recently to the MACRUMORS.COM forums on the topic of the Apple vs Bloggers case that is currently before the California courts:

Quote: Originally Posted by matticus008
As much as I don't particularly care for Apple's tactics, bloggers are NOT journalists. In order to qualify for the same protections as journalists, they must follow the same obligations and responsibilities as journalists.


[ME] Now this I will disagree with ... this is NOT in Apple's favor. Look up the definitions to the word "journalist" and the word "reporter".

reporter (as in "communicator") n. : a person who investigates and reports or edits news stories

journalist (as in "writer") n. : a writer for newspapers and magazines

Where are these standards you speak of contained in these two definitions?



During the last election ... the best place to find information was from BLOGs not from the "mainstream press".

News and news reporting is a result of an action and a medium ... not the result of training or standards.

Would you not call Rush Limbaugh a journalist or a reporter or news commentator? Agree or disagree with his politics or like or dislike his show ... he did not graduate from college nor does he have any formal "journalism background". He also does not follow your standard way of reporting.

Although I despise Jason O Grady and Nick Ciarelli ... as a blogger (myself) who is facing this exact same issue ... I believe bloggers can be journalists ... but that is NOT what Apple is arguing here. It's the EFF trying to twist the shield law and its application to this case that has you doubting the veracity of journalism ... not actual fact or circumstance.

Here is a good case for you:

Gregg Leslie, legal defense director for The Reporters Committee For Freedom Of The Press, says that asking whether bloggers are journalists is the wrong question. "Bloggers is a vague amorphous term like telephone users", he says. "Just like some telephone users are journalists and some are not; the same thing with Bloggers. The medium doesn't answer the question. It has to do more with the function that the person is performing. That's how we approached the shield law question. If the Bloggers' involvement is to report information to the public and to gather information for that purpose openly then they should be treated like a journalist."

"There should be a functional analysis in addition to or instead of the current analysis of what medium you are writing in, " Leslie said.


"As the courts have confirmed what makes journalism journalism is not the format but the content," says Kurt Opsahl (attorney for the EFF). Where news is gathered for dissemination to the public, it is journalism - regardless of whether it is printed on paper or distributed through the internet"


Here's another set of posts about "ethical blogging" vs "what I report here on FYT":

[ME] Note that it's the press trying to twist this for sensationalism and actually listening to the EFF (for senationalistic argument) ... not Apple that is saying that bloggers aren't journalists.

Apple isn't agreeing or disagreeing with the premise that bloggers are journalists ... they are disagreeing that ANYONE has the right to report trade secrets as news.

This case, if decided in Apple's favor will be a REAL blow to blogger's rights ... just the opposite effect of O'Grady's and the EFF's intentions.

I have had a similar argument against my blog recently ... it is being fought over a REAL issue for the court to decide ... whether or not I was a journalist ... previous cases have said that it's not the medium, it is the content that makes a journalist a journalist. If the intent is to report news ... then there is an intent to be a reporter; therefore a reporter (and journalism) exists.

Apple isn't arguing O'Grady's intent ... it is arguing the fact that NO ONE ... certifiable tv journalists, radio reporters, CNN, NBC, FOXNEWS ... none of them have the right to report trade secrets ... which is (in the hands of OGrady) STOLEN PROPERTY obtained = against the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

Quote: Originally Posted by dubnluvn
The bloggers should not be held responsible since they did not break laws to get the information


[ME] They did break laws ... AppleInsider and Ogrady (and others) knowingly accepted confidential business plans, diagrams, and designs. Think Secret EVEN SOLICITS for you (yes YOU) to break the law and "give them dirt" ... the Think Secret site has an ad that says "GOT DIRT?" CALL this #. Reporting or disseminating trade secrets publicly is against the law ... read the UTSA.

A company can't make everything trade secret or at will ... obviously a future product is a trade secret ... obviously Apple doesn't want its competitors to know what it has in the pipeline.

I love rumors sites ... but there are ways to speculate, overhear, and creatively extrapolate --- THAT is the hype that we all like ... not hurting Apple by potentially hurting their impact of groundbreaking hardware and applications.

__________________________________


One more from the MACRUMORS.COM forum:

Quote:Originally Posted by iPie

In any case, if AAPL wants to keep secrets secret, they should just do a better job of it. Wow, this is a real lesson in how to squander good will.


[ME] O'Grady's intentions have nothing to do with good will or "fandom" or love of journalism ... he posts these "trade secrets", solicits for these "news bits", and coerces others for this information for THE SOLE PURPOSE of artificially raising his hit totals so he can whore the figures in front of advertisers. PERIOD!!!

I would even venture to say that there is malice involved.

__________________________________



There is far more drama involved in this case than any of you could possibly imagine. My conspiracy theory is that Think Secret, AppleInsider, and the PowerPage are trolling the web (with a few cohorts) posting these "flamebait" statements into forums. None of the posts ever have reason or intelligence behind them.

No comments: