How Paparazzi ARE a Free Press

[Author’s note: This blog piece has been posted simultaneously here and on burypensions with only a few words of the lead-in example altered]

What became obvious to me early on blogging here:

DeCotiis, Fitzpatrick & Cole, LLP (and to a lesser extent other vendors) run Union County for personal gain and to appease their patrons

What then became obvious, and disturbing, is that the media, what little of it there was (and is) covering real issues on this topic, did not seem to notice and the general public suffers to varying degrees due to their willful ignorance, self-interest, or simple laziness in admitting this useful piece of information into their coverage which would then explain a number of subsequent fiascoes that we chronicled here that always seemed to catch the general public by surprise and should have opened up those mainstream media outlets to derision, if not legal action.

It’s not happening and one new book even takes the position that it is the blogosphere that is intruding upon the news outlets who whore themselves out to those they cover. In The First Amendment Bubble: How Privacy and Pararazzi Threaten a Free Press, Amy Gajda argues that abuses by quasi-journalists (publishing mugshots and revenge-porn) is limiting what ‘real’ journalists get access to and she uses the example of The County Watchers (sic) in her book (from page 153):

Towards a Narrower Definition of “Journalist”

Further proof of the need to define journalist and journalism comes from courtrooms. Not surprisingly, judges similarly seem to be inclined toward a narrower definition.

A court in a 2013 case from Texas defined journalist narrowly. There, a labor union for service employees had published website posts as a part of a “Justice for Janitors” campaign and the union argued that such publications made it a member of the news media. It was an important issue because Texas gives electronic or print media special jurisdictional considerations, a distinction based upon the Constitution’s press freedoms. The court, forced to define journalism, decided that such posts did not qualify. “A ‘journalist,'” the court wrote, quoting Texas law, “is defined as ‘a person who for a substantial portion of the person’s livelihood or for substantial financial gain, writes news or information that is disseminated by a news medium.” It also suggested that other factors would contribute to such a determination: the author’s journalistic background, how established in journalism the reporter was, the character of the posts at issue, the editorial process involved including decisions based on the newsworthiness of  stories, and the size and nature of the readership. Given the Texas law and those considerations, the court found that the union should not receive the special jurisdictional considerations that a traditional journalist would.

A New Jersey state court facing the definition issue that same year defined journalist more broadly and decided that a blogger who wrote for a website called The County Watchers would be protected under the state’s shield law, preventing her from having to testify regarding her journalistic research in a criminal case. The court found that the blogger’s posts on something the communi8ty called “Generatorgate,” her exposé on “Musicfest,” and her stories on pension padding and theft of county property, among others, would be considered “news” under the statue. Moreover, the court decided, the blogger’s purpose was to disseminate news to the community as opposed to publishing information for a limited audience. Given those considerations, the shield law – one written to protect “a person engaged on, engaged in, connected with, or employed by news media for the purpose of gathering…editing or disseminating news for the general public” – protected the blogger. In delineating between journalist and quasi-journalist, however, the court suggested that the definition for the former would not always be inclusive; it reiterated an earlier warning that “new media should not be confused with news media.” It also suggested that the legislature might further define the term within the shield law if it found it necessary given the “changing times.”

The trend seems to be going the Texas way – toward a narrower definition for journalist – even in cases far closer than that of a service union. Charles Tobin, a chair of the American Bar Association Forum on Communications Law and a media defense attorney, called the trend “disturbing” and worried that courts’ or legislators’ willingness to define who counts as a journalist would inevitably leave some legitimate truth-seekers outside the scope of protection.

As the courts ruled and Amy Gajda admitted (albeit as a counter-example to her main theory) Tina Renna is a journalist and a truth-seeker though she has a major advantage over her colleagues who report-for-pay: she is free to think for herself.


2 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by bpaterson on January 18, 2016 at 12:30 pm

    and well you do, county watchers. You have not nor never were owned by anyone or any entity. The whole county watcher product of exposing corrupted govt came about by a personal encounter of one of the county watchers with a concerted effort by union county govt agents to thwart cost savings and award higher priced contracts to those “politically connected”, and in return for the initial exposure to what he thought was the proper conduit for resolution, became himself the target of the corrupted people. Fortunately thru that administrative hearing back nearly 15 years ago it came out that the union county govt will stop at nothing to futher their corruption, to the point of laying on the stand and fabricating evidence against people.

    And so was borne the county watchers investigation and reporting of the rampant waste, abuse and corruption at union county govt and its entities it controls…..and thus the test case when the UC prosecutor tried to paint the reporting as just political and the judge ended up designating the county watchers and their product as investigative journalists. Yes there were other covert attempts against the county watchers, personally and even business related but to no avail each time, and then also those nefarious efforts reported in the countywatchers entries.

    Truth is hard to stop, union county govt has learned. The countywatchers brings transparency to the murk of the cesspool of a county govt. Of course what is done with what is exposed, is another story sadly, a disinfectin is badly needed in the govt, but who will enact after the watchers expose. Some political players may have been “dispatched” but the system is still largely intact for the pigs, minions, dumbasses and those who embrace the dark side. More needs to be done. The media must not be reigned in.


  2. Posted by Danial Shays on January 20, 2016 at 8:25 am

    Well said Mr Patterson!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: