Comments on: observing the CITIZEN JOURNALIST in the wild

By: Joel

Joel — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 23:54:17 +0000

Dan: I wasn’t trying to suggest you’d committed libel — being factually incorrect about curricula, I think, comes nowhere close — only noting that, were a blogger to print something libelous, “I’m a blogger!” probably wouldn’t be seen as a defense.

That being part of a broader point that, well, y’all is media now. It’s not the same as what came before, yes, but that doesn’t make this any less true.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 23:00:05 +0000

My blog doesn’t float your boat??! Well, I’m crushed . . .

I agree with everything else you say, though. I never argued in favor of irresponsibility, and the only factual statement I made that is questionable is that Kobach is scheduled to teach Immigration Law (and he most likely is, but the documentary proof isn’t out yet). I’m not too worried about a libel suit.

By: Joel

Joel — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:02:45 +0000

As somebody who sits on both sides, here’s my two cents:

Strictly as a legal matter, I don’t think the courts would recognize a difference between blogging and other media — though I’m not sure this has actually been tested. If you’re publishing (and you are) and you’ve got those 100 hits a day, you’re media.

Which means that you’re probably subject to all the same libel and slander laws that apply to the Journal-World or the KC Star; the standard for proving libel or slander in court is tougher if you’re a public figure like Kris Kobach — but big media organizations have libel insurance AND money to pay lawyers in the event of such suits. I mean no disrespect to suggest that Dan, Emaw, Tony or anybody else in the Kansas-Kansas City blogosphere probably don’t possess the same resources as bigger media companies, in that regard.

That’s not to say that blogs shouldn’t do much of what they do; but when they venture into original reporting of a sort — and that, it appears to me, is what Dan was doing — then I’d urge all of you to do it, but to do it cautiously. For your own sake.

By: j.d.

j.d. — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 02:15:05 +0000

That’s sort of the flip side of what Tony said in his post: one is more likely to seek out one’s own tribe, but one is also more likely to run with information that skewers someone in the other tribe.

Your point is well-taken, though.

By: emawkc

emawkc — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 01:12:21 +0000

Not sure what happened there… allow me to correct:

“I guess my point is that not being a journalist shouldn’t be a license to be irresponsible.”

By: emawkc

emawkc — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 01:10:57 +0000

I think where Dan went wrong in his original post was when he presented the information as fact. A simple qualifier (“reportedly” “supposedly”) would have been more honest and responsible on his part.

I guess my point is that not being a journailst shoul

But then, I wasn’t raised in Missouri