"Some in the media fraternity argue that making a distinction between who is and is not a journalist would perhaps help to provide clearer directions when addressing alleged infringements committed by posting damaging information on the Internet.
"These concerns exploded in a widely publicised case in the US against a self-styled "investigative blogger" named Crystal Cox.
This defendant functions as a type of 'whistle-blower' using a preponderance of blogs where she frequently writes about allegations of wrongdoing, usually by those in the finance sector.
She was sued by one of the targets of her posts, an investment firm called Obsidian Finance Group and its founder Kevin Padrick who alleged she defamed them.
In resisting a court demand to disclose the source of her information, she argued that she and the source(s) should be covered by laws designed to protect journalists.
The judge ruled otherwise, on the grounds that she was not affiliated with a traditional media entity and so not entitled to such protection.
She was then slapped with a US $2.5-million judgment, the amount which the plaintiff argued that he lost in earnings as a result of the damage caused to his reputation.
The intensity of the criticisms against the judge's 'bloggers versus journalists' comments led him to release a follow-up opinion explaining that his statement should not be interpreted to mean that all bloggers do not qualify to be called journalists, but that Cox certainly could not be so regarded. Moreover, blogging and bloggers were not, up to that point in time, covered under the journalism shield legislation in that state."
"There is a battle brewing in American life in which bloggers and other citizen journalists will demand the same rights and privileges traditionally enjoyed by professional journalists. What is a journalist?
What differentiates journalists from other people who seek to disseminate ideas and information to the public?
Does whether someone is considered a journalist depend on where his or her words are published? On whether he gets paid? On whether she offers only "objective" facts or also supplies her own analysis and ideas?
It was not long ago that the lines between journalists and the rest of us seemed relatively clear. Those who worked for "news" organizations were journalists; everyone else was not. In the view of most, you knew the press when you saw it.
Those days are gone. Thanks to the internet and the growing "blogosphere," the lines distinguishing journalists from other people who disseminate information, ideas and opinions to a wide audience have been blurred, perhaps beyond recognition.
Some of that blurring has resulted from forces outside the media, some from the transformation of the media itself. Whatever the causes, it is harder than ever to tell who is a journalist."
"The self-labeled Progressive Movement that has arisen over the past decade is primarily one big propaganda campaign serving the political interests of the the Democratic Party’s richest one-percent who created it. The funders and owners of the Progressive Movement get richer and richer off Wall Street and the corporate system. But they happen to be Democrats, cultural and social liberals who can’t stomach Republican policies, and so after bruising electoral defeats a decade ago they decided to buy a movement, one just like the Republicans, a copy.
The Progressive Movement that exists today is their success story. The Democratic elite created a mirror image of the type of astroturf front groups and think tanks long ago invented, funded and promoted by the Reaganites and the Koch brothers. The liberal elite own the Progressive Movement. Organizing for Action, the “non-partisan” slush fund to train the new leaders of the Progressive Movement is just the latest big money ploy to consolidate their control and keep the feed flowing into the trough.
The professional Progressive Movement that we see reflected in the pages of The Nation magazine, in the online marketing and campaigning of MoveOn and in the speeches of Van Jones, is primarily a political public relations creation of America’s richest corporate elite, the so-called 1%, who happen to bleed Blue because they have some degree of social and environmental consciousness, and don’t bleed Red. But they are just as committed as the right to the overall corporate status quo, the maintenance of the American Empire, and the monopoly of the rich over the political process that serves their economic interests."
News is NOT about Calling Both Sides and Asking if they Did It.
News is not about Ethics and Standards, it's about what Really Happened.
News is BIASED if it is Factual.
Laws that Apply to BIG Media News Reporters are laws of the United States, and they SHOULD be equal to all who report the news, whatever that news may be. Traditional Journalists should have no greater right to be protected under the law than Investigative Bloggers.
The Constitution Applies to ALL Citizens, not simply Investigative Bloggers, not JUST Traditional Journalists, and not just Attorneys. ALL "We the PEOPLE".
The AP Wire Service is the Real "Google Bomber". They take a piece of a story and make it World News, factual or not and the laws that protect them to do this, do not protect TRUE Independent Media, True Free Press, and REAL NEWS, which in today's age is coming from Investigative Bloggers.
Main Stream Media should not have a Monopoly on Free Speech.
Main Stream Media is Agenda Based, Ad Dollar Based and works for the Banks, Corporations and to control the masses with versions of reality that are not the whole truth and nothing but. Big Media is NOT reporting the news, they are Entertainment News, and feed advertisers, politics and the corporate machine. Investigative Bloggers are the Real News.
Investigative Bloggers are passionate about the story and really investigate, research, read documents, watch videos, talk to multiple parties AND they don't simply call both sides, act unbiased and publish something neutral that has no substance. THAT is NOT the NEWS.
Investigative Bloggers bring you stories they have seen, heard first hand, or researched extensively vs calling both sides. Stories that traditional Journalist cannot bring you, they fear losing their jobs, and must remain UNBIASED and without "Opinion" or really giving the information to the public with deep facts, documents, details, PROOF.
Investigative Bloggers, are for the most part, BIASED, they have to be, as they know the TRUTH of the Story, and with the true knowledge of the facts and events that REALLY happened, comes bias.
Main Stream Media gets an article from one AP reporter, his or her version of the story, the way they heard it, and most likely a calling of both sides to ask their version of reality. This is not the real story, not the deep facts, no document proof, and no real news. Yet they run the story in every newspaper and AP connected publication worldwide, they put my face on the news, and they regurgitate that same story and NONE of them do independent research. They all listen to one person and they "Google Bomb" the world with that persons perception of the news story or event. I would rather each reporter gave me a BIASED Opinion then to simply regurgitate someone else's story. Or maybe each news office, tv station, news reporter could actual READ the documents, watch the videos, listen to hearing, and ACTUALLY report the news, even if biased, that is the news I would rather have delivered to me. Investigative Bloggers do that. Main Stream Media, the AP, TV News DOES NOT DO THAT.
Main Stream Media, Traditional Media, Traditional Journalists, Traditional Reporters ARE not bringing you the REAL NEWS, the Real Story, the Real Events, the FACT. They Cannot Afford To. Independent News, Free Press, Alternative News VIA Investigative Bloggers ARE bringing you the Real News and Investigative Bloggers SHOULD have Equal Protection under the Law.
Investigative Bloggers Unite
I, Crystal L. Cox, am Not a Journalist, I do not want to Be. I did not CLAIM TO BE a Journalist in the Traditional Media Sense of the Word "Journalist", in which they seem to feel they own. I am not a Traditional News Reporter, I do not wish to be. I am an Investigative Blogger, and what I want is equal protection under the law for ALL Investigative Blogger. AND that is what I am Fighting For, what I persist for, and why I refuse EVERY settlement offer.
I do not want to be accepted by Traditional Media / Journalists / Reporters, approved of by them, taken in as one of their own. I am an Investigative Blogger, I am TRULY Independent. No one controls me, edits me, censors me. I bring you independent thought and news from my own research and those I deem newsworthy. Take it or Leave It.
I am not Traditional Media, nor am I trying to be. I am Alternative News, Alternative Media, News of the People, By the People, FOR THE PEOPLE. I do not answer to the alleged standards of practice, ethics, bias, mirage of rules, that traditional media has the courts believing is what gives them a higher degree of protection under the law then and Investigative Blogger. I am one woman, doing what I can to make the world a better place by giving top of the search engine voice to victims of corruption in the courts of America.
Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox was not Protecting A Source.
Classic Case of Media GONE Rampant with misinformation. There was no secret source, nor source I was protecting. Yet the entire world, the wire service run rampant claimed that I was protecting a source and therefore wanted to use the Shield Law, and it would not have protected me anyway Blogger or Traditional Media Reporter Simply Not True.
My source was known for 3 years by the Plaintiff and His Attorney for Several Years before they sued me. I was not refusing to give up a source.
Crystal Cox, Investigative Blogger wanted Oregon Retraction Laws to Apply to her case. The Plaintiff and his attorney sued me, Crystal Cox, to retaliate against me and silence me regarding a $40 Million Dollar Oregon Bankruptcy they were both involved in. Neither asked for a Retraction before they sued a Blogger for 10 Million Dollars. A Blogger who they knew was reporting on them for over 3 years before they sued her. They did not bother to ask for a retraction of a blog post before, what is now well into the third year of legal battles, courts time and expense and massive damage. It is the law to ask for a retraction, yet the Judge in my case said Oregon Retraction Laws did not apply to me because I was a Blogger. This was not correct, not lawful and certainly not constitutional.
This same Oregon Judge, Judge Marco Hernandez RULED that the First Amendment Does not apply to me because I am not a Journalist associated with a known media.
The First Amendment does apply to Crystal L. Cox as a Citizen of the United States, and as an Investigative Bloggers, Equal yet very different roles. The First Amendment APPLIES to ALL.
I wanted to protect massive amounts of eMails from sources under the Shield Law, not their identity. I wanted to Actual Malice to apply to my case. The story is not how it is portrayed. Mass media and bloggers read the Seattle Weekly article and formed their story, their news from that one story, without reading Trial Documents or finding the FACTS.
Judge Marco Hernandez DENIED me a new trial, seemingly on what he believed as to me having no standards or ethics and seemingly guilty of Extortion. Yet I was not on trial for extortion, so how did this factor into my case. Standards and Ethics and are NOT LAW, so how was that a factor in my case? If a Federal Judge thought I extorted those 2 Attorneys who claimed I did, (Marc J. Randazza and David S. Aman) then why not a federal investigation, a criminal trial, instead of using that as a NEW reason why I am not allowed, as a blogger, equal protection under the law as a journalist because he thinks I have no standards, ethics, and am a criminal.
See folks, If I am Convicted of a Crime, say Bank Robbery, and I get a prison citizen for this Felony, am I then without First Amendment Rights? Am I then not protected with equal rights as traditional journalists in my my online reporting? Is it even related at all?
Come on, are their no JOURNALISTS who are Also Felons? Makes No Sense.
Extortion was no Part of the Crystal Cox Case, Obsidian Finance Group V. Crystal Cox. The Plaintiff's Attorney David S. Aman, in conjunction with the New York Times Reporter David Carr, Forbes Reporter Kashmir Hill, NPR Reporter Bob Garfield, First Amendment Attorney Marc J. Randazza, and other alleged conspirators, simply defamed Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox to teach me a lesson, to intimidate me into stopping my Ninth Circuit Appeal, and to attempt to discredit the corruption stories I was and am exposing on my Anti-Corruption Media / Whistleblower Media Blog Network. There was no Extortion, there was no Extortion investigation, trial, or criminal complaint.
For more on the Topic of the First Amendment and Investigative Bloggers as it relates to the Crystal Cox Case, Now on Appeal at the Ninth Circuit
"Crystal Coxconsiders herself an investigative journalist, but her only outlets are the websites she's created to write about legal issues. In one of many blog posts she wrote aboutObsidian Finance Group(an Oregon firm), she was critical of the company and called its co-founder a "thug" and a "liar." When Obsidian sued her, she said she had an inside source that backed her allegations. She tried to use Oregon'sshield law— which protects journalists from revealing their sources — to protect her, but the judge found that Cox was indeed not a journalist and, as such, could not be protected by the shield law.
Cox, who represented herself, also argued that Obsidian's claim was unfounded because they never asked her for a retraction. Under Oregon's retraction law, a defamation case cannot go forward unless the person who claims to have been defamed has first asked for a retraction or correction and not received it, but that law only applies to printed or broadcast material.
A federal judge ruled (pdf) against Cox's legal arguments. The ruling requires her to pay The jury in the case required her to pay $2.5 million in damages. The case has made international news and has reinvigorated the question of whether bloggers are journalists. Should bloggers be protected by the same laws that protect traditional journalists?
In a world where more and more news is found online, how can those lines be drawn? What punishment, if any, should Cox — and bloggers like her — face for defaming someone? Should traditional journalistic standards apply to everyone who writes a story online?"
Also please Note, I never had a Secret Source. The Seattle Weekly ran with that in December of 2011, and its' not factual. My sources were revealed for years when I went to trial. Plus I took over 500 pages of proof of source.
And to this day, I believe Kevin Padrick broke bankruptcy law and was in breach of contract with the Summit Principals and that this severely harmed the Creditors and Investors of the Summit Bankruptcy. Kevin Padrick has been accused of these same activities in objections to his fees in other bankruptcy cases as well, do your homework if you really want to know.
Kevin Padrick's actions harmed his OWN reputation, however he still signed massive wattage agreements and got multi-million dollar deals, and continues to. I did not harm his reputation, his own actions did. FIND THE FACTS. .. Read the Documents, Listen to hearing Audios, Read Depositions, Watch Videos, Read Billing Receipts, Read Court Orders, Read Contracts, Read internal eMails, and make an educated decision on the facts. If you don't want to do this, then is it really "impartial", "fair" to simply assume I am the bad guy, because a Jury was instructed to not apply any laws to me nor the first amendment?