I have just finished reading the syllabus of the New Jersey Supreme Court in Too Much Media v Hale. I was unable to locate the opinion, but will do so when able. I have read the Court of Appeals decision that was ratified by the NJ Supreme Court so i think i know where things stand. If you post on a message board you are not a journalist and you are not protected under NJ law.
Now i don't want to get off on a tangent but i will because tangents are fun. This is the same esteemed body that decided that the word "not" does not mean "not" in every case. More specifically "not" does not mean "not" when it means that your corrupt democratic Senator who is sure to lose to the Republican needs to be removed from the ballot so that the demos have a chance of winning the election. I am not sure if this opinion is any more than trying to protect one of the most vested constituencies of the democratic party, main stream media reporters. After all these idiots don't want just any idiot showing up at their press parties and claiming to be journalists. Journalism has standards and the most important one is that you hate Republicans. End tangent.
In order to establish my cred as a journalist in the event that a media company ever sues me in a New Jersey Court, or in the event that any other court decided that NJ has the right idea and adopts the same line of reasoning, i am here to declare my bona fides as a journalist. Obviously not as a real journalist as defined by press organizations given that i not only do not hate Republicans, but am in fact quite taken with them; but a journalist in a sense necessary to pass the test set forth in Hale. First off, this blog exists to inform the public. This is an essential component of journalism. It is published on the world wide web and the entirety of the planet may access it.
Secondly let me state that this is the forum where i publish the results of my investigations. Conducting investigations is the most important part of the rights secured by the freedom of the press in the various declarations of rights in the various Constitutions and laws that set forth such rights. The specific methods of investigation must remain secret as i do not want my competition gaining an unfair edge. But i will tell you that i frequently solicit information from sources first-hand. If you are one of these sources and i have guaranteed your confidentiality you can be reassured that i will not lightly reveal your identity. You should also be aware that if Agent Jack Flowers needs your name to protect your identity in order to safeguard this great nation i will have provided your name, address, and contact information to him before he gets his boot laced up. I don't want to be kicked in the nuts. The NJ Supreme Court emphasized the importance of telling confidential sources that they will be confidential. I can take i hint.
The last thing i want to emphasize is that although i do not belong to any press club or organization and lack a formal affiliation with traditional media outlets, i do adhere to journalistic standards. For instance i would never report on a story that might do harm to a cause i endorse. Just as the mainstream media tries to bury anything that might cast doubt on global warming, cause the general public to realize that obama is as big a buffoon as joe biden, or that Republicans might ever be right, i tend not to mention that there is some quasi-scientific evidence of planetary warming, obama can most likely read an analog clock, and there have been occasions where Republicans other than Lincoln were wrong.
I do try to fact check wherever possible. I admit my errors and do so in as public a way as the errors were committed. When i was the contributing writer for a major gaming website i insisted that all of our errors be published on the front page to ensure our readers were never misled. I still subscribe to that philosophy. Many major journalists cannot claim the same. Ask Dan Rather if he has admitted he was wrong about the Killian Documents that he publicized in the lead up to the 2004 election.
The NJ high court seems to think that it is important to give your target a chance to respond. I disagree. They are wrong about this. Anyone who watches House knows, "Everyone lies." Given that the targets of my investigations will just lie about the questions i ask them, there is little point in asking them any questions at all. To save time and avoid inconvenience i simply skip that process altogether. Had traditional journalists adopted this journalistic standard it could have saved Anthony Weiner a lot of embarrassment. You knew he was lying, and was going to continue to lie about sending that photo of his erect member to a coed, so why ask him for his side? Had my policies been in place he need not have gone on TV to explain that he was sorry for lying, a lot--by a lot i mean a huge amount; no more than that, more like every word that came out of his mouth between May 27, 2011, and June 5, 2011, was a lie.
Given that i am not currently being sued i think it can be safe to say that these statements are not a self-serving attempt to protect myself in the face of a law suit. I would go so far as to say that by declaring myself to be a journalist that i am making an admission against interest and as any 1L knows, an admission against interest is inherently reliable. The lack of incentive to make a damaging statement is an indication of the statement's reliability. (For those of you who did not go to law school).
I hope that this has been edifying for you all. For my regular readers, please note that you may later have to declare by affidavit that you read this before i was sued. I don't want some court somewhere getting the idea that i made this up just so i could invoke a shield law at a time that might be convenient for me.
Later
Bob
