DEFINING JOURNALISTS

The Record (Bergen County, NJ)
06-10-2011
DEFINING JOURNALISTS
Section: OPINION
Type: Editorial

THE VERY definition of what it is to be a journalist in the rapidly changing age of the Internet was put to a test this week when the New Jersey Supreme Court issued its ruling in a case involving a blogger from Washington State.

In a long-awaited decision, the court ruled unanimously that the blogger, who had been sued for defamation by Too Much Media LLC, a New Jersey-based software company, was not protected under the state's shield law that allows journalists to keep their sources confidential. The defamation suit was brought over comments the blogger posted on an Internet message board.
"To ensure that the privilege does not apply to every self- appointed newsperson, the Legislature requires that other means of disseminating news be 'similar' to traditional news sources to qualify for the law's coverage," Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote in the 5-0 decision. "We do not find that online message boards are similar to the types of news entities listed in the statute."

The blogger, Shellee Hale, said that she had intended to publish findings about the online pornography industry on her website, Pornafia, which never fully launched. Instead, she posted comments on an online forum called Oprano.

In Rabner's thoughtful writing, the court found that "certain online sites could satisfy the law's standards." However, it ruled that online message boards such as the one to which Hale posted "are not the functional equivalent of the types of news media outlets outlined in the shield law."

Also important, the court overturned a portion of an appellate court ruling that sought to establish stricter criteria for journalists to qualify for protection under the law, such as requiring that newspersons identify themselves as reporters or maintain certain credentials, or compelling them to follow one particular set of standards.

Undoubtedly, as one attorney connected with the case has suggested, the larger legal discussion concerning what constitutes legitimate journalism, or what should be privileged under the shield law in the Internet age, is only beginning and will continue for years to come. Still, the court's ruling in this case at the very least provides a solid baseline from which future arguments may proceed.

2011
A.20