My blogfather, Bill Dennis of Peoria Pundits, has an interesting story about a judge tossing a blogger out of a hearing:
My two cents: Lest the judge alone come under criticism for his decision, it must be noted that the lone representative for Peoria County SA Kevin Lyons’ also opposed letting Elaine Hopkins do her job.
One wonders what Judge Purham would have done were he a judge decades ago when the first radio journalists began doing their jobs. Most early broadcast reporters were, like Elaine, veterans of the print world who were trying their hand at a new exciting way to distribute the news. Would Purham have turned away young Walter Cronkite, a United Press reporter before he became Uncle Walter?
What makes a person a journalist isn’t the particular media he or she uses to disseminate the news. It’s the fact that they are disseminating the news to a mass audience.
I'd argue that the definition of journalist doesn't depend on the audience - mass audience or not, reporting events is reporting events. But I'll be watching this story to see how it develops, that's for sure.
is this like when Brian Dolinar was thrown out of a press conference?
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
"is this like when Brian Dolinar was thrown out of a press conference?"
I think Dolinar was removed for his past record of disruptive behavior, not for his being a "blogger" - which is a description I think he'd repudiate. I don't think the Champaign police have ever excluded anyone else who works in online media (I know I've never been troubled when attending Champaign City Council meetings), so I think Dolinar was excluded for being Dolinar.
This Peoria blogger had no such record of disruptive behavior, and was excluded because she didn't fit the judge's definition of a "reporter."
Where is a "journalist" defined in the Illinois statutes? Anybody know? It is conceivable that an archaic and strict definition is the driving force behind the judge's decision. After all, laws which have been on the books in many states over the years don't seem to fit in our modern society-yet they are still in force.
Personally, I think it's reasonable to believe that the attorneys present in the hearing had a vested interest in keeping the blogger out and that the definition, if it exists, is nothing more than a matter of opinion driven by some CYA concerns on the part of these same attorneys.
A reporter is more than someone who reports. Reports to who? Genrally accepted, reporters work for radio, TV, newspapers and magazines. The major difference would be an editor, someone who oversees the reporter and tries to maintain the integrity of the news and the reporter him/herself.
A journalist merely journals. A blogger merely posts or writes at blogs.
Juvenile proceedings are not appropriate for retired people who think they have a right to be there just because they have an internet website.. Otherwise, anyone could be there. There are good reasons why those proceedings are closed to the public.
The Judge was right. Blogger isn't the same as reporter. Retired reporters aren't the same as reporters, either, and it doesn't matter if it was a reporter with an excellent reputation for past work. When you are out of the club, you are out of the club.
"Genrally accepted, reporters work for radio, TV, newspapers and magazines."
Not anymore. Daily Kos has more readers than Time Magazine. So do dozens of other online-only news-providers.
What about sites like Politico, that are online-only? What about Drudge?
"The major difference would be an editor, someone who oversees the reporter and tries to maintain the integrity of the news and the reporter him/herself."
What difference does an editor make? Frankly, I'd rather have my integrity judged by my readers, not by an editor. Editors miss major errors in reporting all the time, including such glaring examples as Jayson Blair and Dan Rather.
That's why consumption of "legacy" news sources is plummeting.
"A journalist merely journals. A blogger merely posts or writes at blogs."
I'm sorry - I don't see any difference.
"The Judge was right. Blogger isn't the same as reporter. Retired reporters aren't the same as reporters, either, and it doesn't matter if it was a reporter with an excellent reputation for past work. When you are out of the club, you are out of the club."
Club? Who sets the membership requirements? Who decides who's included? Are you saying there should be some sort of government licensing requirement for reporters?
Actually, the Illinois Constitution and Compiled Statutes are seemingly reasonably clear:
"SECTION 4. FREEDOM OF SPEECH
All persons may speak, write and publish freely, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty."
It would seem actually that the judge could have closed the hearing to all members of the press and he would have been well within his (or rather the children's) rights. He may have made a grievous error by attempting to define a "blogger", especially one so well credentialed, as not being a "reporter".
However, for those who still want to claim that reporters and media members are somehow part of a protected Fourth Estate, the USSC has continually ruled that this is not so, First Amendment protections apply equally to all.
Interesting, I didn't know family courts were open to journalists, I thought they were outright closed.
However, the controversy about ejecting a reporter misses the point... the big issue is that DCFS and friends can legally operate a star chambers court. That's a far bigger issue than the debate about whether bloggers are journalists (and most aren't and wouldn't consider themselves to be... think of all those personal diary blogs or even better, the splogs).
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
I think a clarification is needed... while both are part of the First Amendment... free speech and free press are different rights.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
This is juvenile court. The intent of state law is to protect those involved in proceedings from public gawking. The duty of the judge is to err on the side of caution, excluding people who he isn't confident will protect the privacy of the individuals before the court. If you're working for a newspaper/TV/radio news department you have an editor who is going to enforce the rules. A lone-wolf blogger does not have the reputation or incentive for respecting privacy that a member of a traditional media organization does. Don't feel too bad. They probably wouldn't let in the National Enquirer either.
Bambenek. Your point is moot. They are both still rights that are enjoyed and guaranteed to ALL citizens.
And that is the primary issue.
Warrior,
You are mistaken in your characterization of the particular blogger in this instance. Please, go read the full story (on 3 different blogs).
PB. no my point is that they are different rights, I made no suggestion whether or not the apply to all or not. And that point is perfectly valid. Free speech and free press are different rights. Anything other than the suggestion the rights are seperate is your imposition on what I said.
Warrior, I understand the argument for having a closed court in juvenille cases, but considering the well known cases of abuse in having star chambers courts, even in juvenille cases, should give everyone pause.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
The judge probably shouldn't have kicked the blogger out. But it also sounds like he would have let a establishment journalist stay and report on the case. So to start saying "OMFG STAR CHAMBERZ!!" is a bit of a hysterical overreaction.
I did read the full story. Yes, she was newspaper reporter. At this point she's writing without editorial oversight and there's no organization to hold responsible if she breaks the rules. You don't want judges making decisions based on their personal evaluation of a person's reputation because then you'll get the nutjobs complaining that if you let in one blogger you have to admit them all.
Narc, you simply cannot be this stupid, I refuse to believe it.
These courts, unlike every other single courtroom in this country, are sealed to the public. While the press could report on this courts, they most often don't. That means these juvenille cases operate completely closed, which makes them star chambers courts. If you want hysterical overreaction, I'd suggest you take a look at the recent cries of censorship for political committees having to file disclosure reports. Because we know all those members of the GOP and DNC have been shut up because those committees had to file.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
"At this point she's writing without editorial oversight and there's no organization to hold responsible if she breaks the rules."
Yes, because editorial oversight and a organizational structure is the magic line that seperates "responsible journalists" from "irresponsible bloggers."
See Blair, Jayson and Rather, Dan and a thousand other examples. Please remind again me how their organizations were held responsible for their misdeeds?
"Journalists" are no better nor worse than bloggers. They're not more reliable, they're not more responsible, and they're certainlyh not more accountable.
It really is a tough judgment call, though. I think IP does care about his blog's reputation, and it's unlikely that we'd see questionable behavior from him or from other responsible bloggers. It's also true that there's been plenty of unethical behavior from mainstream journalists - Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, Janet Cooke, etc. However, it does seem like some bloggers, particularly anonymous ones, might be less likely to face serious consequences for bad behavior than mainstream journalists. For example, it's unlikely that Jayson Blair will ever be able to write for a reputable paper again.
"However, it does seem like some bloggers, particularly anonymous ones, might be less likely to face serious consequences for bad behavior than mainstream journalists."
It's also unlikely that an anonymous blogger would show up to cover a court case.
It would compromise their anonymity, for one thing. :-)
It's also unlikely that an anonymous blogger would show up to cover a court case.
It would compromise their anonymity, for one thing. :-)
True, if they actually had to identify themselves and their blog. I was imagining a scenario where someone just claimed, "I'm a blogger!" and expected to be admitted.
Bambenek, that doesn't change the fact that your "clarification" is still moot. It lends nothing to the discussion.
Also, I am totally in agreement with Narc here (did I just say that?). You are way overreacting in your accusation of a Star Chamber court. First I have to ask if you've ever been to a juvenile proceeding? The parties generally present consist of a judge, court clerk, bailiff, states attorney (although not always), attorney for dcfs, guardian ad litem representing the children, parents, attorney for parents, foster parents, doctors, psychologists, family friends, etc. While these proceedings may be closed to the general public, they are not the secretive courts of the Middle Ages.
I am also strongly opposed to any discussion concerning the credibility or supposed lack thereof of bloggers as reporters. Our Constitution, the Illinois Constitution and Illinois statute provide for any citizen to have the freedom to publish. It doesn't matter who they work for or for how long or anything else. The judge erred in deciding that the blogger (and especially such a well credentialed one) was not a member of the press.
I thank you for your high opinion of my intelligence.
They're not "completely closed" for the simple reason that they are open to the press. Oversight of the proceedings *is* available. The press (presumably) finds them uninteresting and chooses not to attend. If no one watched C-SPAN, would that mean Congress suddenly started operating under closed session?
The Internet and blogging has changed what it means to be a member of "the press" and it seems pretty clear this judge doesn't understand that. It seems to me the question has become how to limit access to "press and bloggers" (who, one presumes, are allowed to attend because they can handle sensitive issues responsibly) and not make that "anybody who feels like attending".
"Narc, you simply cannot be this stupid, I refuse to believe it."
John,
This was uncalled for, and I'd prefer nothing similar is said again.
"The press (presumably) finds them uninteresting and chooses not to attend."
Might be one of the best reasons to allow independent journalist bloggers into them... lack of coverage from the traditional media. I'm assuming there is some liability involved with reporting on such court cases since minors are often involved so the worries about anybody with a blog getting into them seem somewhat legitimate. But perhaps it would be better to ensure that such folks are adhering to some journalistic standards and legal obligations on what information is allowed to leave the room as opposed to blocking independent folks entirely.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"See Blair, Jayson and Rather, Dan and a thousand other examples. Please remind again me how their organizations were held responsible for their misdeeds?"
First, the individuals no longer work for their organizations, because those organizations don't tolerate falsified or poorly fact-checked reporting. Second, their former organizations lost a little respect and credibility as accurate and unbiased news sources (they would have lost a lot more if they hadn't reacted as they had and retracted the stories).
I think that, on average, a professional anything going to be more reliable, responsible, and accountable than an amateur. Yes, there are some bloggers who are better than your average reporter and some reporters who are worse than your average blogger, but that doesn't make press credentials meaningless.
It's tiresome to hear all the 'bloggers' here beat their chests and talk about how great they are. Blogging is not journalism. Just because you pay money to have a website hosted doesn't make you a responsible journalist. Just look at the local IMC website (or any of them, for that matter).
Also, there are very good reasons why juvenile proceedings are very closely guarded and somewhat secretive. Mainly, it boils down to the fact that it's none of your damn business. Juveniles are specifically guarded under IL law and granted special rights. Read the Illinois Juvenile Court Act. It's very specific. The 'star chamber' comments are BS and just a cover for being nosey.
Well anonymous,
Unfortunately, you're wrong according to the citations I already listed above.
And you're right, the Juvenile Court Act is very specific. It says:
So, there goes the end of your argument.
This was uncalled for, and I'd prefer nothing similar is said again.
_____
Good luck with that one.
"First, the individuals no longer work for their organizations, because those organizations don't tolerate falsified or poorly fact-checked reporting. Second, their former organizations lost a little respect and credibility as accurate and unbiased news sources (they would have lost a lot more if they hadn't reacted as they had and retracted the stories)."
These are exactly the same consequences that would face a blogger who faked stories - a loss of audience and a loss of outlet. To bloggers, those are one and the same.
Journalists are no more accountable than bloggers. In fact, they're less so, as they most often much more insulated from audience participation and correction than most bloggers.
"It's tiresome to hear all the 'bloggers' here beat their chests and talk about how great they are."
I'm not talking about how great I am - far from it. I know I've made mistakes, and I've publicly acknowledged them when I've done so.
What I am opposed to is this notion that "journalism" is something that requires a license, or special training, or membership in a club, or an editor. None of those is true.
"Journalists" are no better or worse than bloggers, and in most cases, they should be treated no differently.
Pardon me anon, but exactly what makes juvenille cases so special to require a veil of secrecy compared to, say divorce cases? In divorce cases (certainly the ones that are ugly) both parties lives are completely open and documented in the court. The veil of secrecy can apply just as much there.
re: star chambers courts... it's quite typical to see the military tribunals referred to as star chambers courts, do you consider that hysterical overexaggerating too?
Re: journalists v bloggers: They are different, better or worse entails value judgments on what matters. I think it's safe to say pound for pound, grammatically, journalists certainly are superior. There are other criteria were bloggers are better. I would challenge you on the statement that journalists are no more accountable than bloggers. Journalists can be fired, for one. A blogger who fakes a story (especially if they blog anonymously) might lose an outlet, but they can create another. A journalists who fakes a story has to find a new career.
xian: pot, kettle, black.
PB: There is a reason the First Amendment has free speech and free press listed seperately. That's because they're different. I'm sure you must have covered this in your 8th grade constitution class.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
John,
That still doesn't change the fact that your point is moot with respect to this discussion.
As to the rest of this argument, military tribunals are also frequently open to the public. Really. I've been to plenty of them. Your case for a Star Chamber is too weak for you to continue pressing the issue. The compelling interest in juvenile cases is the privacy and security of the children. Kids are freaked out enough when they have to go to court and be in front of a judge behind a big desk or sit up in the witness chair. Can you imagine how they would be in front of a courtroom full of gawkers? And you still didn't respond to how many juvenile hearings you've attended. You just don't understand them at all.
As far as journalists v. bloggers, under Illinois law and the USSC interpretation, there is no difference. Why keep pressing the issue? And don't you think that perhaps you are the last blogger who should be pushing the credibility point?
And John, I bet I covered more constitutional law under my major than you did in 8th grade. But if you want, you can borrow my copy of Cohen.
PB,
Thanks for saying it more eloquently than I could. I was leaning toward just telling John to shut up because he obviously doesn't know what he's talking about. Not subtle, but to the point.
I've taken a few actual law classes (beyond whatever your self-described "useless liberal arts degree" has covered. Here's what I learned in actual law school. Free speech involves what you say... if this judge restricted this bloggers free speech, he would have had to shut down her blog. Free press involves acting like a journalist, which is what this involves in throwing her out of the courtroom. Yes, the difference may be somewhat technical, but it does matter. The judge wasn't censoring her.
And I never said *I* thought military tribunals were star chambers courts either, but you have developed quite the propensity for not actually reading what I'm writing.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
You actually have no idea what courses I've taken or what post-grad work I've done. You also can't duplicate the hundreds of hours I have in the courtroom.
Again, go back to the beginning. This has nothing to do with Free Speech or Censorship (prior restraint). You seem to have a bigger problem with reading comprehension than I do. This has to do with a judge not affording a journalist/blogger the privilege to which she was entitled under Illinois law. I'm sorry I used more than one step in my argument so that you couldn't understand it.
Let's do it again shall we?
1 Both the Illinois and US Constitutions guarantee that the right to publish is accorded to all.
Are you with me?
2. Il statute (see citation above) defines a reporter. The blogger in question satisfies the requirements of that definition.
Are you still with me?
3. Il statute (see citation above) specifically states that media can't be automatically excluded from juvenile hearings.
Do you get it yet? C'mon John, it's only three simple steps.
The judge exceeded his authority by making a decision whether or not the blogger in question qualified as a reporter or a member of the general public. That is the only question being discussed here.
As for your "I never" statement, then just what did you mean by this: "it's quite typical to see the military tribunals referred to as star chambers courts, do you consider that hysterical overexaggerating too?" It would seem that you are using that statement as parallel evidence for your point. Whether you "said it", you are stating it as a "truth" to support your argument.
It's time to get over yourself or one day you will earn that Wiki page, but for all the wrong reasons.
ooooh, now that's funny, Kevin!
You're too late for the show though. I'm done. I can't explain it in any simpler terms and I'm not interested in going off on any of John's useless tangents.
"I would challenge you on the statement that journalists are no more accountable than bloggers. Journalists can be fired, for one. A blogger who fakes a story (especially if they blog anonymously) might lose an outlet, but they can create another. A journalists who fakes a story has to find a new career."
A blogger faking a story would lose all credibility, and online, that's the same thing as being fired. Nobody's going to read them, regardless of whether they start new blog.
There's really no difference, and one is no better than the other. One is more responsvie and accessible and accountable to their readers, and I think that's a good thing. The other has higher levels of credibility because of the established traditions of their outlets, and that's also a good thing. But the work they do is, at the root, identical.
PB, you may think because you've already run one person off this blog with your shoddy logic and personal attacks, that it somehow makes you a blog warrior, I'm not cowed by your cheap rhetoric.
You make a good point I don't know what post-grad work you've done or what time you've spent in a courtroom, but then you turn around and make the same assumptions about me (have you ever been in a juvi courtroom... you can't duplicate my hundreds of hours in a courtroom). Well, cupcake, if you bothered to check, you'd see I have actually argued cases in a courtroom. While you're sitting back in the cheap seats, I was making an argument and I'm 2-0 so far.
The rights to free speech and free press are different, end of story. You argue that because they are universal in their application that they are apparently synonomous. Due process is universal too, did this judge violate due process, no. Protection from search and seizure is a universal right, were those rights violated, no. If this bloggers went to appeal the rulling that bloggers are not journalists and cited free speech, the case would be thrown out, because that wasn't the right violated. If she cited free press, she'd have a case. The difference between the rights are not tangental to the conversation, the refer to exactly what the nature of the problem is.
Your sloppy logic, non-sensical analogies and personal attacks don't somehow transform the bill of rights.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
I wasn't going to respond but you really don't leave me much choice.
You made it to your third year? Really? Because that's the only legal way you could have argued a case in a courtroom in this state without being an attorney or pro se. And if you did it pro se, big deal. People do it in traffic court all the time. Would you care to give me the case number? I'd love to read it.
And again, your clarification has nothing to do with this discussion. I didn't argue they were synonymous at all. At no point have I cited free speech. I don't know where you keep getting that. Go back to the beginning and start reading over. Really. You seem hellbent on injecting your knowledge that the two are not the same into this discussion. The problem is, it's really pretty immaterial. The only reason you're doing it seems to be either to re-assure yourself or to show to everyone else that you know the difference. So?
The whole problem with the judge's order (it was not a ruling, it was not even a "question" for consideration, "decision" isn't even really the right word - although if the blogger wishes to pursue it, it could be - but right now whatever he did carries no legal force whatsoever) was that it was contrary to statute. He simply asked her to leave for the wrong reason. However, that reason could have repercussions should she wish to contest it. She will have both state and federal remedies at her disposal.
And ps, I would bet that the only one who thinks my argument is nonsensical is you, because you seem to be the only one who doesn't get it. In fact, I also think you should look up the word "analogy", because I haven't made any.
And look, freedom of the press isn't exactly the problem. The problem is that Illinois defines what a reporter is and that they are allowed to attend a certain type of hearing and the judge made an order contrary to those two statutes.
I probably shouldn't even have brought freedom of press into the argument. I only did it to show that "technically" if one wanted to push the issue under Illinois law ,all anyone would have to do is start a blog and start publishing and it appears that you should be legally considered "news media". My point is also that it is dangerous to think of "news media" as a separate protected class (although Illinois does have a "shield law") since those are freedoms that are guaranteed by our federal and state constitutions to all citizens.
PB, again, you display a startling lack of knowledge about the law. People can argue in court for their own interests without a lawyer. I've done so 3 times. If you're such an expert in law, go find the cases. To use your own logic... so you warmed a seat in a courtroom... big deal.
Some people cited free speech, I said we're talking about free press. That's it. You keep reading in to my comments again and again material that is simply not there. I made the comment of which right we were talking about, you start talking about the universal application of the rights...
And for the record, it was you that interjected free speech. You cited it, you brought it into the discussion.
<i>"SECTION 4. FREEDOM OF SPEECH All persons may speak, write and publish freely, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty."</i>
If you'd like, the comment can be seen www.illinipundit.com/2007/07/27/so-called-blogger-tossed-judge#comment-70458.
I never suggested at all the bloggers should be treated as a seperate class, or more accurately, bloggers who are doing journalism (as I said before, I think you'd be hard pressed to consider a splogger a journalist). However, your repeated attempts to bludgeon me for point out an accurate fact are noted. You're adding nothing to this discussion. You brought up free speech, I corrected you, I was right, you were wrong... there is no more intelligent discussion to be had here. You lose.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
John,
Hey, do yourself a favor and look up the definition of "pro se". It's not me displaying ignorance here.
And you're right, I put that quote in there in its entirety because that is how it comes from our state constitution. I said nothing about free speech since the relevant portion was free press. I didn't feel that needed any clarification which is why your point was moot.
But that's okay. You can still believe I was wrong if it makes you feel better. The record shows otherwise.
YM "I was wrong" HTH
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
I didn't misspell anything. Grow up, John.
The only one stomping his foot and acting like a child here is you. Go take a nap or something. You were wrong, get over it, life goes on.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
I'll take it then that you didn't find that dictionary, huh?
John, you completely ruined what could have been a nice discussion. You blustered and blabbered and now refuse to admit that you had no idea what you were talking about, which you would have seen had you just picked up a dictionary and also read the statutes.
It's really a shame because if you weren't so intent on being a jerk, you could have learned something. I really am done now because this is pointless. When you decide to be a man, I'll accept your apology.
Don't blame me for your childishness. You're the one shutting down debates with your agression, not me. You're the one making this personal, not me. To this exact moment, I am still right... we are talking about free press, not free speech. Since I made the first comment, which I agree is technical in nature, you have kept trying to impose some set of ideas on me that I'm not saying. All I'm saying is we're talking about free press, that's it. Your childish rants and your thuggish attitude have already run one blogger out of here, I think your record speaks for it self.
But yes, I'm sorry... I'm sorry for not remembering sooner the adage about arguing on the internet.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
Prairie Biker:
John Bambanek replies:
That would be a heck of a gotcha, John, if it weren't for the fact that pro se means exactly that. That is, Prairie Biker used the correct legal term for appearing on your own behalf in court, which you (a) failed to recognize -- leading to your misguided attempt to educate Prairie Biker in that which s/he already knows -- and (b) then attacked Prairie Biker for his/her "startling lack of knowledge" over.
PB 1, JB 0.
anonymous,
The joke's not nearly as funny if you have to explain it.