Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Bloggers vs. Journalists? Or, Bloggers as Journalists?

May It Please the Court has an interesting post up recently. It's regarding a letter from the Attorney General of California, soliciting comments. Essentially, what the AG wants to know is whether bloggers are journalists.

I know I'm not the first to comment on this, but it's difficult to have a sincere discussion of blogging vs. journalism. It's difficult because the two are at the same time completely interrelated and mutually exclusive. Make sense?

Of course it doesn't.

I can blog to my heart's content, and I've got about zero chance of ever scooping a mainstream media outlet. I'll link them like crazy, but I just haven't got the resources, or the time, to devote to the gathering of original content to place here. No blogger does, really. Oh, sure, there are "professional" bloggers who, I suppose, live for nothing else, just as there are attorneys who live for their work. I fall into neither category.

Now, a sincere discussion of bloggers as journalists, that's a different story entirely.

First, let's define "journalist."

Three results appear when you hit Google and search "define:journalist."

Princeton University defines "journalist" both as "a writer for newspapers and magazines," and also "diarist: someone who keeps a diary or journal." Do we get some help there? Not really. As I pointed out above, inherently interrelated and mutually exclusive, right?

San Diego State University, in a glossary of journalism terms, defines "journalist" as "Someone who works in the news gathering business, such as a photographer, editor or reporter." That definition is a little more helpful I suppose, although it still (coming from a school of journalism) needs to be taken with a grain of salt, no?

And finally, we have the singularly helpful definition provided by Wikipedia, stating that "journalist" means "A journalist is a person who practices journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues and people." Thanks.

But let's go with good ol' Merriam-Webster. A "journalist" is "1 a : a person engaged in journalism; especially : a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience 2 : a person who keeps a journal "

Kinda wraps all the other definitions up in a nice little package, doesn't it?

The conclusion to be reached from this cursory examination of the term is that, yes, bloggers are journalists. At least, each and every blogger is a journalist in one sense of the word or another. Take me, for example. I am definitely "a person who keeps a journal," and "a writer who aims at a mass audience." Granted, I fall terribly short of the mass audience, but that's beside the point. What I do here, I do because I hope that someone, somewhere, will learn something from me that they otherwise might not learn. My efforts similarly fall under the category of "gathering and dissemination of information," etc. All blogs are like that, really. The only difference between blogs is readership. We're reminded constantly that something is "newsworthy" only if the public is interested in hearing it. Jokes about the obvious (due to my sitemeter) non-newsworthiness of this particular blog aside, I believe we're left with the threshhold question. That is, should we (bloggers) be recognized as journalists, regardless of any lack of formal training in conventional journalism? Should we have access to the rights and privileges afforded to members of the conventional journalism community?

In answer, I'm going to leave you with one particularly applicable statement from the link on May It Please The Court, referencing an essay by Jay Rosen on PressThink:

"Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one, and blogging means practically anyone can own one. That is the Number One reason why weblogs matter."

Thank you, Mr. Rosen.

Now, where's my fedora?

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Chinese Hegemony: Are We Getting the Message?

Intense debate surrounds China's current bid to take over Unocal. I'll just add my voice to the massive number of people who understand that allowing a Chinese-government-owned company to buy a hugely powerful American oil company is simply a bad idea.

Were that alone not enough, with all of China's posturing, and the possible raising of bids, they're discouraging even the smallest amount of foreign involvement in their country. They've even forbidden Chinese media from associating with foreign companies.

So, are we getting the message? We can't afford a round of "Do as we say, not as we do." As good at that as America itself is, we simply can't match the ability of the Chinese government to divert funds for direct economic take-over of American companies.

If they won't let a privately owned enterprise make deals with their local media outlets, why in blazes should we extend them the courtesy of, for heaven's sake, owning an American oil company? It makes no sense.

Makes me wish I owned a substantial number of shares of Unocal, though. I'd be voting to nix China's bid.

As it stands, all I can do is hope Unocal's shareholders make the right decision. If they make the wrong one, though, what can we do?

Monday, July 11, 2005

Small Firms, Unite! Or... Wait. Don't...

What I mean is, unite in your resolve to remain insulated from the mentality of the big lawfirm.

I was just alerted to a great blog-post on MyShingle.com, entitled "Starting a Firm May Be the Only Escape from Biglaw Culture."

All I can say is, "Amen!"

While I was in law school, I began the process of fighting with my classmates over the few big-firm associate positions. I was all set, sadly, to give my life to one of them, and likely sacrifice my wife's affection in the pursuit of a bunch of dollars. Then something happened to me.

My wife gave birth to our first child while I was a 2L. She was born 3 days before fall-semester finals. I looked at her once, and immediately decided to take my Dad up on his offer of an office. We're now a 2-lawyer firm, and I (with another daughter born early this year) am well on my way to being remembered as a Father-who-happens-to-be-a-lawyer rather than a Lawyer-who-happens-to-have-kids.

It means less money, but hey, I've already proven I'm the richest man on earth.

Friday, July 08, 2005

To Londoners:

My heart goes out to you all.

You are, and will remain, in my prayers.