Michelle Malkin's Apple vs. Bloggers

Analyze the case study of Apple vs the Bloggers as presented by blogger Michele Malkin (see here, here, and here). Give your opinion on the application of this ruling for BOTH citizen journalism and mainstream media. Be sure to follow the links she provides in the story.

Back in March of this year, Michelle Malkin reported on an endeavor by Apple to force three bloggers to reveal their sources for stories they had broken online. It tackles a relatively new question of whether bloggers are considered "journalists" in the eyes of the law. Malkin goes on to make the point that the court seems to believe that you are only a journalist if you work for a major news publication. Finally, she exposes a couple of bills that would either define bloggers as journalists or as everyday Joes.

It seems the mainstream media side of this is slightly protective of their "status" as trained, professional journalists. I almost stand with Dan Gillmor's view of the mainstream media; they have a pseudo-elite status that makes them feel threatened by these bloggers that are suddenly breaking stories everywhere (those about Apple, for example). Because of this threat, they are clamoring to legally define bloggers as NOT-journalists, making them susceptible to all kinds of legal ramifications and questioning by authority. Does this silence bloggers? Of course not, but it certainly makes it more difficult to be a good one.

The blogger side of this might be asking for too much as well. It seems that bloggers want all the priviledges that are offered to mainstream journalists, while enjoying a lack of editors and other beauracracy restraints. Bloggers have it good; they can post daily without concern of getting fired or getting defiled as much as a mainstream journalist would. Yet they still want the same status as these journalists.

I would give bloggers as much protection as they deserve; but they only deserve that protection when they hold to the ethical standards that any other journalist would abide by.

Copyright: What are the results?

Refer to the following readings for this week (We the Media: Here Comes the Judges [191-208], We the Media: The Empire Strikes Back {209-235]) and comment on the implications of copyright for citizen journalism. Be sure to make reference to an actual situation (there are several in the readings) where copyright can have dangerous consequences. Is there a mentioned situation where copyright restrictions can have beneficial outcomes? Make references to citizen journalism and/or mainstream media in your response, where appropriate.

Can we possibly imagine a life without a home video recorder? Gillmor tells us in his book We The Media that back in 1984, only the narrowest margin in the Supreme Court preserved the right of Americans to tape a television show and play it back later (Gillmor 215).

This demonstrates that the age of TiVo and pirating films from the Internet is not entirely new. We have come quite a ways to get where we are today; and authors, publishers, and even bloggers are concerned about copyright law and how their works will remain their own. In the computer age, it is only too easy to copy and paste someone else's work and make it your own.

In an ideal world, bloggers and citizen journalists can do their own reporting, write their own stories, and publish whatever they please. But to the horrors of many, judges and lawyers can jump in and take away what you've worked for, or catch you when you cheat. Gillmor further draws the line:

A culture of cut-and-paste is made to order for the Net, where an almost-anything goes attitude prevails. Cutting and pasting is not, by itself, a bad thing; quoting the work of others is a routine aspect of research, for instance. But when people routinely pass off work of others as their own, it goes too far.

The watchful eye that hovers over journalists can be a good thing; it is absolutely necessary to catch punks like Jayson Blair, formerly of the New York Times, who built his success on lies (Gillmor 200). While the policing of work can have such good effects, I wonder how the Internet is monitored for such works. Its sheer vastness and especially velocity of growth must make it difficult for the enforcement to keep track of what exactly is being misused.

This is where the citizen part comes in; the main reason for the expansiveness of the Internet is its growing number of users. And as the number of liars and cheaters expands, so does the number of users who wish to keep it safe and ethical. It is citizen policing on a daily basis that keeps the Internet so.

What makes Austin Bloggers Weird?

**This is a crosspost of an entry over at my group's blog for my citizen journalism class.**

Austin is a big city, and while it may not be one of the larger cities in the U.S., the blogosphere around here is almost ominous.

Robbie Cooper has been blogging at Urban Grounds since 2003, with topics ranging from international news and politics to disc golf and getting hit by a deer while riding his motorcycle in west Austin.

Cooper is a conservative blogger in Austin, and sees himself as one of the few.

"The Austin Blogosphere is unabashedly and inarguably Liberal, and most of the best Austin blogs revolve around state and local politics. Meanwhile positive or substantial blogging on behalf of local and state Republicans is scarce," he said.

One of those major political blogs on the left is the Burnt Orange Report, which has a team of bloggers behind it. The BOR seems to blog exclusively on Texas politics, but receives almost 2,000 hits a day, and has had over 1 million since its inception.

Why has Austin become such a hub for blogs, especially political ones? Cooper believes that it's all about location.

"This was where President Bush started his political life, this is where our Democrats run to Mexico to avoid votes, we’re never more than a stone’s throw away from any major Texas or even national story," Cooper said.

Cooper also believes that because Austin is a wireless city, blogging has become easier and more real-time.

"Everywhere you go in this city is a wireless access point. Live blogging is possible everywhere you look," Cooper said. "Austin bloggers, for the most part, conduct themselves as if they might actually run into each other at the local coffee shop or diner. And that’s probably because there’s a good chance that they will."

One place that Austin Bloggers can vitually "meet" is at AustinBloggers.org, an aggregator of posts by registered Austin bloggers that have to do with the hyperlocal news arena. Different Austin bloggers can read about what other bloggers are saying in their area and link to each other, engage in debate about local events, or even find something to do that night in the city.

Austin bloggers can also meet up at Metroblogging: Austin, which is part of the larger Metroblogging site, which specializes in local blogs where citizens of large cities can meet to get a sense of community.

In addition to Austin's location and wireless capability, Cooper believes that the emergence of Austin as a major blogging locale reflects the mainstream publication the city reads.

"I think that the Austin blogosphere has magnified the inadequacy of our local newspaper, the Austin American Statesman. With the breadth and depth of coverage provided by Austin Blogs, it’s glaring how much the Statesman misses or just plain underreports," he said.

The Austin-American Statesman seems to be responding, however, with the launch of their own blogs as a branch of their online news edition. The Statesman has allowed community voices to be a part of their mainstream publication in an effort to reach out to the blogosphere, and is one of the first mainstream publications to do so. In addition, the blogs are powered by Pluck, an Austin Internet solutions company that specializes in RSS, or "real simple syndication."

Perhaps one of the major forces fueling Austin bloggers is pride for the city itself, reflecting its inherent weirdness.

"The common theme I’ve found in all Austin blogs is an overwhelming sense of pride and love for the city itself," Cooper said.

I'm still here.

I realize I haven't posted anything in almost two weeks. Tests, retreats, general craziness, you get the idea. There's more coming soon (I'll be home and alone for Thanksgiving, so what else is there to do?).

In the mean time, here's me in a firefighter suit:



Oh! And have you seen this yet? My favorite thing about it is the music!

Ari Fleischer, Former White House Press Secretary, Lecture at UT Austin, LIVE BLOG

8:25 p.m. Speech is over, time for questions. I think I might ask one. I'll post later about that. Thanks for reading, nobody!



8:15 p.m. As for what's next in Washington; third big issue in Washington. Events sure don't feel good for Republicans. As bad as thing are, Bush remains the most popular figure in Washington. No one likes ANYONE in Washington. Everyone's job approval rating is low. 'Judge' Alito will make a few rulings that will make conservatives happy, but will drive liberals to the polls next year. As bad as things are for Republicans, the nation is still trending to the right-center. Bush understood that trend, and it will be very hard for Democrats to reverse it.

8:11 p.m. (Someone just 'coughed' an expletive. Jerk.)

8:02 p.m. Second big issue in Washington: Iraq. "I whole-heartedly support what we are doing in Iraq" despite the fact that we couldn't find WMD. (Someone just yelled that Bush lied about WMD. Jerk.) We have to accept that we were all wrong about WMD's. "We are witnessing the struggle for democracy to be born inside the Arab world. How can we do anything else other than support the struggling people of that country?" We should stand proudly on the side of the Iraqis! The media began to take for granted that Saddam was bad; his daily killings were not considered news. CNN withheld news about the killings because they didn't want their bureau in Bagdhad to be closed. Remarkable progress is being achieved in Iraq. Quotes Michael Kelly, a columnist. Must look him up.

7:58 p.m. First big issue in Washington: the Supreme Court. Harriet Miers was a "trust me" selection. The president picked her to be a conservative blank slate. Conservatives didn't like her from the very beginning because they didn't know her. Now, Republicans are delighted with Sam Alito. Judge Alito is well known, highly respected, and a great intellect. The liberal base of the Democratic Party is angry. Will they mount a filibuster? "If they do so, they do so at great peril." He believes Alito will be confirmed.

7:54 p.m. Fleischer admits that his team is in a slump, but it's politics. "You never know how quickly something will fade, or how quickly something will arise. You never know how quickly something will turn around." One year ago, he says, the press was talking about how the Democratic Party was in disarray. In politics, most issues return to a muddled middle. "I told myself that everyday was a crisis and if everyday was a crisis then my job was to treat everyday as a routine.... In the end, what usually counts is the long-term."

7:53 p.m. Ah ha... he just said Putin.

7:52 p.m. He begins talking about his job as White House Press Secretary. He says he loved the job; "...in that position, I twice got to meet the Pope, I once got to meet Joe Torre."

7:44 p.m. When Fleischer drove up to the White House, he had to avert his gaze. He says that the White House was such a historical place, where so many decisions had been made, that it was difficult for him to look at it. Amazing. He couldn't wait to start his new job as Press Secretary. Three months later, the President wanted to meet Fleischer to play catch on the South Lawn. Fleischer showed up in a business suit; the Bush showed up in sweat pants and a bullet proof jacket.

7:42 p.m. Ari? Is that R period E period? President Bush gave Ari the name "Ari Bob."



7:37 p.m. Ari Fleischer takes the stage. Fleischer lived in Austin for a year, at the Gables in Central Park. He says he couldn't have gotten into UT with his grades. Before he went to the White House, he was raised a liberal Democrat. His parents reamin Democrats.

7:35 p.m. Okay, now they're introducing Ari Fleischer.

7:33 p.m. Someone is introducing Fleischer. Actually, she's plugging the Student Events Center. She asked for no flash photography, and then someone took a picture of her with flash. Heh.

7:10 p.m. ACHOO!



7:00 p.m. They've let us inside the auditorium and it's filling up... though it's not as crazy as when I came to see Ann Coulter. There's no press here, but there are some reserved seats in the front. There are microphones set up; time to start thinking of a question to ask!

6:35 p.m. The lecture begins in a little less than an hour, and I'm sitting on the steps that lead to the LBJ Auditorium where Fleischer will be speaking. I'm with my sister, Anna, who is a freshman here at UT. The line is pretty long, I guess about 50 people or so. My butt hurts, this floor is hard.

Ari Fleischer to speak at UT

Tonight I will be attending the Ari Fleischer lecture at the Univeristy of Texas LBJ Auditorium. Hopefully, they will let be bring in my laptop so that I can live blog from there. It promises to be an interesting event, noting the kind of welcome he will probably be receiving.

For Woodreaux

I feel kind of silly posting this, but I hope you will allow me a personal moment.

This morning my family decided to put our dog to sleep after he suffered paralysis on the back half of his body. Woodreaux was a beautiful, extremely active, happy German Shepherd mix. I enjoyed having him as a pet, and I want to share his beautiful mug to my tens of readers.


This morning at the vet's office, when one of the nurses saw that I was upset (actually I was crying my eyes out) she gave me a cute little pin of a dog with a halo and wings. I can't help but think that there's some truth to that.

Reining in Google

Former Colorado congresswoman and president of the Association of American Publishers Pat Schroeder and Bob Barr, a former member of the House Judiciary Committee, author, newspaper columnist, and analyst for CNN, have joined forces to write this editorial column blasting Google for its efforts to publish on the Internet contents of books contained in the Stanford, Harvard and University of Michigan libraries.

Authors may be the first targets in Google's drive to make the intellectual property of others a cost-free inventory for delivery of its ad content, but we will hardly be the last. Media companies, engineering firms, software designers, architects, scientists, manufacturers, entertainers and professional services firms all produce products that could easily be considered for "fair use" by Google.

Google envisions a world in which all content is free; and of course, it controls the portal through which Internet user's access that content. It would completely devalue everyone else's property and massively increase the value of its own.

I think publishing book content on the Internet is a great idea; but authors and publishers ought to be compensated for the use of their work. To be blunt: if authors can't make money on the books they write, the amount of books written will be severly reduced, and Google will have nothing else to scan "snippets" of and publish online.

Here's an overview of how Google Print works. Looks like they have public domain books available. That's nice.

And here's what Google says people are saying about Google Print. Of course, no mention of the above editorial.