And this is why I stopped reading Mashable. They should have done research ( like the NYTimes did) before publishing their story. Pete, publishing first doesn't make you guys a news organization- unbiased writing, research, and accuracy do.
When Truth Survives Free Speech
11–20 of 53 posts
Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech
#12Having, like the NYT journalist, read the decision and various information about the case, I take almost the opposite tack. It's not the ruling on whether she is a journalist that is irrelevant, that's actually the key point. The person probably did engage in defamation. The problem is the judge used this case to make a wide ranging and unnecessary determination that bloggers are not journalists because they don't wo…
If the NY Times has the right facts I'm wondering if the judge was trying to give Mr. Padrick some justice. Anyone know what Oregon's shield law has to say about magazines that are defamatory?
The shield law "do[es] not apply with respect to the content or source of allegedly defamatory information, in civil action for defamation wherein the defendant asserts a defense based on the content or source of such information."
Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech
#13Ask yourself why your life sucks. It's because God is just.
Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech
#14"She didn’t so much report stories as use blogging, invective and search engine optimization to create an alternative reality."
And "real" media outlets NEVER do that. Oh, wait...
Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech
#15Having, like the NYT journalist, read the decision and various information about the case, I take almost the opposite tack. It's not the ruling on whether she is a journalist that is irrelevant, that's actually the key point. The person probably did engage in defamation. The problem is the judge used this case to make a wide ranging and unnecessary determination that bloggers are not journalists because they don't wo…
she's not a journalist. really.
the judge decided this based on the lack of "(1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others; or (7) contacting 'the other side' to get both sides of a story."
(2) is maybe questionable; but (3), (4), and (7) are legitimate reasons.
Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech
#16I think the more interesting part of this is why Google has allowed this woman to manipulate the SERP's in order to bash this guy for so long. They usually have an itchy trigger finger when it comes to burying sites like hers for using keyword stuffing and other questionable SEO techniques. Likewise, I'm surprised Mr. Padrick never contacted Google to have these pages removed either. Had either Google or Mr. Padrick…
Google doesn't editorialize. What do you mean allowed?
Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech
#17It may well be defamation. The courts should definitely look at it, after they examine the case of the NYT selling the U.S. a war. (Which one? All of them, actually.)
I know this sounds facile, but it does indicate the kind of journalism cases that the court is interested in.
Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech
#18Having, like the NYT journalist, read the decision and various information about the case, I take almost the opposite tack. It's not the ruling on whether she is a journalist that is irrelevant, that's actually the key point. The person probably did engage in defamation. The problem is the judge used this case to make a wide ranging and unnecessary determination that bloggers are not journalists because they don't wo…
she's not a journalist. really. the judge decided this based on the lack of "(1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confi…
3 and 7 disqualify many fair and balanced "journalism" organizations as well.
Accept that the judge was BSing and this part of the decision makes much more sense.
Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech
#19Having, like the NYT journalist, read the decision and various information about the case, I take almost the opposite tack. It's not the ruling on whether she is a journalist that is irrelevant, that's actually the key point. The person probably did engage in defamation. The problem is the judge used this case to make a wide ranging and unnecessary determination that bloggers are not journalists because they don't wo…
she's not a journalist. really. the judge decided this based on the lack of "(1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confi…
[deleted]
Re: When Truth Survives Free Speech
#20It may well be defamation. The courts should definitely look at it, after they examine the case of the NYT selling the U.S. a war. (Which one? All of them, actually.) I know this sounds facile, but it does indicate the kind of journalism cases that the court is interested in.
The court is interested in cases that are brought to them. It's hard for anyone to have standing in suing the NYT for not doing enough due diligence leading up to the war(s).