Are bloggers journalists? San Francisco Says Yes

By Richard Koman - April 4, 2005

San Francisco will tomorrow become the first jurisdiction in the country to declare that bloggers should be treated no differently than traditional media. That's what the San Francisco City Attorney will state at a meeting of the city's Board of Supervisors. The Board is considering an amendment to the city ordinance that would require full disclosure of who is paying for political messages.

The proposed language exempts "news stories, commentaries or editorials distributed through any newspaper, radio station, television station or other recognized news medium" unless the medium is "owned or controlled" by a candidate, political party or committee.

So are blogs a "recognized news medium?" Yes, the City Attorney will say at the Supervisors' meeting tomorrow. What's not clear is whether independent individuals who are paid to do partisan blogging would fall under the press exemption. For instance, would a campaign consultant be able to blog without disclosure? What if he or she were not being paid directly by a campaign, party or committe? What if someone were being paid for technical consulting and was "volunteering" to publish dirt on the opposition? I couldn't reach the City Attorney's office for comment.


The question of whether blogs are media erupted recently in the case of Apple v Does, in which Cupertino-based Apple is trying to compel online news sites to reveal their sources for reporting that revealed technical data about unreleased products. In a preliminary ruling, the judge in the case cast doubt on whether the blogs in question had standing as legitimate news sources.

While the final ruling in that case applied to all media, it's still unclear what standing bloggers have. San Francisco's statement could impact media-related court cases adjudicated in the city.

This story first came to our attention (via the Blog Herald) from a post on Personal Democracy Forum by Michael Bassik, vice president for Internet advertising at Malchow Schlackman Hoppey & Cooper, the self-described "leading political direct mail and online advertising firm in America.

In his post Bassik claimed that the proposed amendment would require "local bloggers to register with the city Ethics Commission and report all blog-related costs that exceed $1,000 in the aggregate."

"Blogs that mention candidates for local office that receive more than 500 hits will be forced to pay a registration fee and will be subject to website traffic audits," he wrote, citing Chad Jacobs, a lawyer in the City Attorney's office.

That's simply wrong, said Greg Asay, legislative assistant to Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, who sponosred the amendment. He suggested this is a "red herring" being spread by anti-disclosure sources.

Bassik, whom I reached by cell phone in New York, said that the city attorney's announcement represents a "huge victory. Before this, it was not clear whether they were going to include blogs in the press exemption."

Bassik emphasized that while the San Francisco announcement is a first, the public should pay close attention to rules proposed by the FEC on March 24 on when blogs should be considered press, volunteers, or paid consultants. There 60-day comment period on the proposed rules, dating from March 24.


Share this article

 Subscribe in a reader

By Richard Koman - April 4, 2005 | Permalink | Comment | Category: Media Watch
| SVW Toolbar | SVW Newsletter | SVW Mobile

Comments (2)

penguin:

While at first blush this may seem like good news, I don’t think it is. 1) It subjects bloggers to legislation which, let’s be honest, would be near impossible to enforce. 2) It masks what partisan hacking and corporate propaganda as journalism, which does a disservice to the profession. 3) It weakens the definition of journalism, precisely at the moment when journalists are seeking greater protection under the law to source confidentiality (Plame/Judith Miller case, anyone?) 4) It offers some form of credibility to those who seek to use blogs as attack vehicles. I could go on. But blogging is the wild west of information gathering and reporting, and should remain so. Any attempts to somehow make blogging fit the norms of an established profession defeats the purpose of blogs.

Posted: April 4, 2005 5:57 PM

Richard Koman:

I do take your points in general but I'm not sure I understand them in this case. The rule is aimed at improving disclosure of who is paying for messaging; the aim is to force political entitites to own up to the messages they're paying for.

So: 1) Since bloggers are press, it doesn't subject them to any legislation, it exempts them from the legislation, same as mainstream press.

2 (and 4)) I agree that it is really problematic to say that everything published in Media X is journalism, whether it's printed on paper, video or websites. The rule is trying to say, though, that if a political org is putting up a blog, that has to be disclosed but (my current understanding) anything short of that would be protected, including some PAC paying a blogger to do their bidding. Paid hackery whether directly owned by a committee or by an independent contractor should be covered by the same rules.

3) It weakens the definition of journalism? Well, no one I think is trying to define journalism but they do need to figure out who is exempt from disclosure rules and "press" is the catchall word for that. Personally I think Fox does more to weaken journalism than blogs but in any case the law is trying to define political messaging not journalism.

Thus where you say, "Any attempts to somehow make blogging fit the norms of an established profession defeats the purpose of blogs" I would ask how that helps the folks in government trying to navigate these waters. Should blogs be included in the disclosure rules or should they be exempt? I would say some of both.

Posted: April 4, 2005 9:53 PM