[The Final Dakar]

That wasn't a serious answer, fellas. That was more of a "Late night show monologue" answer.

[starman]

The line between journalism and blogging has been blurred so much lately. I always thought of journalists as people that went to school and learned how to write well, how to get to the heart of a story, and tell it in a particular, professional, and mature manner. Maybe I'm disillusioned, but how different is it for, say, a self-taught computer programmer that kicks ass? Is the lack of a formal education in something the cause to not take someone seriously?

This is where the blogger/journalist line blurs. Some bloggers are damn good at what they do. Some aren't. Bloggers were taken seriously because of their reach to a particular demographic (eg: Engadget vs. Your Local Paper). However, I think that once again, Gizmodo made a bad name for tech bloggers that are trying their damndest to be taken seriously.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

Maybe people delaying purchases is not that much of a problem, but copycats now having a 2 months headstart certainly is. If cheap phone knockoffs come out with the same design around the time of the new iPhone that will harm Apple a lot.

I don't see that either, there have been screenshots of what was purported to be the next iPhone out there before Gizmodo has published them. Of course, Gizmodo wasn't forced to put a collection of blurry pics on their homepage, but I fail to see how this is specific to Gizmodo.

It's not that I don't see your point, but I fail to see how it is legally relevant as others who have published iPhone pics seemingly have not been sued by Apple.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Given that the charge centers around Giz *knowingly* purchasing stolen goods, or at least failing to take basic measures to verify that it wasn't, and that Giz' defense is basically to claim that they had no way of knowing until after they spent the money, I think it's fairly sensible to confiscate any machines he may have used to communicate with his higher-ups, to determine/prove that they did, in fact, both know it wasn't the guy's to sell, and that they made no efforts to prove otherwise.

I don't think it's sensible if no attempt has been made to question Chen and others employed by Gizmodo. (Which I don't know.) If they haven't been questioned, then this raid is not justified as no raid is necessary if there is cooperation. Secondly, if it turns out that this was an illegal search and seizure, all evidence obtained from Gizmodo's machine is excluded in court (it seems as if the DA is thinking about the legality after the fact -- not a very clever move if you ask me). This makes it harder to convict Chen of anything he is accused of.

Originally Posted by starman 

What's the difference between a "popular blogger" and a "journalist"?

I bet Chen makes money publishing stories on Gizmodo. Which makes the discussion very simple.

[starman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I bet Chen makes money publishing stories on Gizmodo. Which makes the discussion very simple.

So that means any schlub that makes money on a blog is a journalist?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by starman 

The line between journalism and blogging has been blurred so much lately. I always thought of journalists as people that went to school and learned how to write well, how to get to the heart of a story, and tell it in a particular, professional, and mature manner. Maybe I'm disillusioned, but how different is it for, say, a self-taught computer programmer that kicks ass? Is the lack of a formal education in something the cause to not take someone seriously?

Yes, that's how the real world works. Lack of a formal education means you have to work twice as hard to prove you can do what someone with a piece of paper can do, regardless of actual skill or intelligence.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yes, that's how the real world works. Lack of a formal education means you have to work twice as hard to prove you can do what someone with a piece of paper can do, regardless of actual skill or intelligence.

There is no formal education for journalists.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by starman 

The line between journalism and blogging has been blurred so much lately. I always thought of journalists as people that went to school and learned how to write well, how to get to the heart of a story, and tell it in a particular, professional, and mature manner. Maybe I'm disillusioned, but how different is it for, say, a self-taught computer programmer that kicks ass?

People were journalists long before there was an "established" career qualification system - the same as in computer science.

It wasn't until these professions began to be recognized as actual careers that those structures were put into place. And now, with the internet, the blogosphere is softening them up again.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

There is no formal education for journalists.

Um, yes there is.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by starman 

Um, yes there is.

Having a college diploma in "journalism" is only one (and arguably, the least valuable*) of a couple dozen ways to become a journalist.

*) least valuable, because the most important thing in daily news is routine. Somebody who's applying to a job in a newsroom after having gone through two years of editing the high school paper, four internships, and *maybe* a B.A. in political sciences is probably going to be a far better choice than somebody fresh off journalists' college.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by starman 

So that means any schlub that makes money on a blog is a journalist?

Gizmodo is not really `just a blog,' it's a well-known website if you're into gadgets, not just some wordpress blog of someone posting pictures of his pets. We don't really need to argue where to draw the line in general, I'm only interested in this specific case. So if someone is getting paid to write articles, that's a clear indication (s)he is doing this professionally. (Professionally doesn't mean doing something well here, just doing it for money to make a living.) This means, Chen is a journalist -- and as such required to special protection.

Just think how tedious it was for Apple to shut down ThinkSecret. `Also just a guy with a website.'

Originally Posted by starman 

Um, yes there is.

No, what Spheric meant is that there is no required education for someone to call him/herself a journalist. I could become a journalist if I wanted to. That's different from, say, brain surgeons: there, you need to have completed a specific education to obtain a license.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Having a college diploma in "journalism" is only one (and arguably, the least valuable*) of a couple dozen ways to become a journalist.

*) least valuable, because the most important thing in daily news is routine. Somebody who's applying to a job in a newsroom after having gone through two years of editing the high school paper, four internships, and *maybe* a B.A. in political sciences is probably going to be a far better choice than somebody fresh off journalists' college.

I think starman was probably referring to masters degrees in journalism, but regardless, what you said is true of any profession.

The relevant question to ask is what Chen's prior journalism background is.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The relevant question to ask is what Chen's prior journalism background is.

I fail to see how this is relevant.

[Eug]

Indeed. My brother was a journalist in a major international publication. Because of his extensive knowledge of government and politics in certain countries (as it was part of his graduate work), they hired him... you guessed it... to cover political news etc. in those countries. I guess they realized he'd make a better overseas political reporter than the local weathergirl.

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I think starman was probably referring to masters degrees in journalism, but regardless, what you said is true of any profession.

Not really. As Oreo was suggesting... I'd rather have a fresh out of residency neurosurgeon operate on me than someone who just happens to have read and wrote a lot on the subject in the last 20 years.

The relevant question to ask is what Chen's prior journalism background is.

Not really. See other posts.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I fail to see how this is relevant.

It's relevant in the sense that it would help illuminate whether Chen is working from a base of journalistic ethics, which was questioned earlier in the thread.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

It's relevant in the sense that it would help illuminate whether Chen is working from a base of journalistic ethics, which was questioned earlier in the thread.

What is the "base of journalistic ethics"? And if it's legal (and that is the question here), why does it matter?

To put it another way, if the NY Times had done what he did, should they be shielded if Chen isn't? If not, then Chen shouldn't be shielded either. If they would be shielded, then IMO so should Chen.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Eug 

What is the "base of journalistic ethics"? And if it's legal (and that is the question here), why does it matter?

To put it another way, if the NY Times had done what he did, should they be shielded if Chen isn't? If not, then Chen shouldn't be shielded either. If they would be shielded, then IMO so should Chen.

I just mean that to answer the question "is this blogger a journalist?" your answer should take into account his professional background, since the journalist-blogger identity is still a relatively new one. Unfortunately, this kind of subjective determination is difficult to make in a legal context.

[Eug]

While I don't know the legal definition here, from my layperson's perspective, Chen is most definitely a journalist. AFAIK, he gets paid for the job, and I spend way more time reading his stuff than watching the local weathergirl on TV.

That said, the reason I read Gizmodo is for the cool gadgets they write about, not because I actually like their writing style.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

It's relevant in the sense that it would help illuminate whether Chen is working from a base of journalistic ethics, which was questioned earlier in the thread.

Ethics are irrelevant to determine whether he is a journalist or not. In the worst case, it makes him a criminal and a journalist (or a journalist who has committed a crime while working), but him being charged (and possibly convicted) of a crime has nothing to do with whether or not he is a journalist.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Ethics are irrelevant to determine whether he is a journalist or not. In the worst case, it makes him a criminal and a journalist (or a journalist who has committed a crime while working), but him being charged (and possibly convicted) of a crime has nothing to do with whether or not he is a journalist.

Well, shield laws don't apply to everyone.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Well, shield laws don't apply to everyone.

Yes, but being accused of a crime doesn't mean you're no longer a journalist if you would have been without these accusations in the room. I've read SpaceMonkey's post as an attempt to set the bar higher for Chen -- which I don't think is legitimate.

I absolutely agree with what you've posted before:

Originally Posted by Eug

To put it another way, if the NY Times had done what he did, should they be shielded if Chen isn't? If not, then Chen shouldn't be shielded either. If they would be shielded, then IMO so should Chen.

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by starman 

Um, yes there is.

Most "journalism" courses are worthless, and seen within the industry as such. All the, successful, professional writers I know come from a wide variety of educational backgrounds.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Yes, but being accused of a crime doesn't mean you're no longer a journalist if you would have been without these accusations in the room. I've read SpaceMonkey's post as an attempt to set the bar higher for Chen -- which I don't think is legitimate.

I wasn't trying to say anything about the possible legal case against Chen, specifically. I was responding to the general turn in the thread to the question of blogger-vs.-journalist generally.

[The Final Dakar]

I'm probably at fault (or starman) for the entire "real" journalist tangent here, but to me the only reason the question is interesting is this (Warning: Terrible Analogy incoming) It's like a chick that rips a fart during dinner - sure she knows its inappropriate, but wouldn't it seem more egregious if you found out she went to finishing school? In this case, I'm sure Chen knew better than to purchase stolen goods (if they were stolen/if he knew), but it seems more inexcusable if he had an academic journalistic background that might point to him knowing better.

Yes, I realize it's all irrelevant in the long run. I'd still find it interesting.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm probably at fault (or starman) for the entire "real" journalist tangent here, but to me the only reason the question is interesting is this (Warning: Terrible Analogy incoming) It's like a chick that rips a fart during dinner - sure she knows its inappropriate, but wouldn't it seem more egregious if you found out she went to finishing school? In this case, I'm sure Chen knew better than to purchase stolen goods (if they were stolen/if he knew), but it seems more inexcusable if he had an academic journalistic background that might point to him knowing better.

Not really.

Fencing stolen goods is a legal issue that has nothing to do with journalism. If this were about his sources, and he'd misjudged the source, then yes.

In this case, to provide a counter-example, it would seem more egregious if he'd gone to law school.

[The Final Dakar]

What is "fencing stolen goods"?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

What is "fencing stolen goods"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fence_(criminal)

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

If this were about his sources, and he'd misjudged the source, then yes.

I missed this. Yes, to me this is about his judgment about his source.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I missed this. Yes, to me this is about his judgment about his source.

"Source" refers to a source of INFORMATION.

As I wrote over in the other thread, there was nothing unlawful about the search warrant and confiscations made.

Gawker quoted Section 1070, which prohibits search warrants against journalists on grounds of being "adjudged in contempt … for refusing to disclose … the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for publication".

Whatever that has to do with knowingly purchasing stolen goods, God only knows.

This search is not about revealing who stole the phone (and it *is* stolen according to Cali law); it's about determining that Chen (and his employers) must have known that the item his corporation was willing to pay $5000 for (by their own admission) was stolen, or at least failed to take even the most basic measures to verify that it hadn't been.

If this were about Chen's refusal to disclose the previous owner's details, then a) police would have had to ask for them, and b) he would have had to refuse to disclose this information, and c) he would have to have been held in contempt of his legal obligation.

None of that is the case, AFAWK.

The warrant states that

…there is probably cause to believe that the property described herein…
…was used as the means of committing a felony.
…tends to show that a felony has been committed or that a particular person has committed a felony.

The second point could refer to the source. The first can not. It is reasonable to assume that both apply to Jason Chen, and/or his bosses who authorized the deal.

Gizmodo, by all appearances, and by their own admission, have perpetrated a felony by purchasing stolen goods. That warrants investigation, and immediate confiscation of any means of communication before incriminating evidence (discussion of legal status with Gawker's COO before the purchase, for example) can be destroyed. Hence the urgency and the night-time warrant.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

"Source" refers to a source of INFORMATION.

As in the dude who sold them the phone, yeah.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

As I wrote over in the other thread, there was nothing unlawful about the search warrant and confiscations made.

Gawker quoted Section 1070, which prohibits search warrants against journalists on grounds of being "adjudged in contempt … for refusing to disclose … the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for publication".

Whatever that has to do with knowingly purchasing stolen goods, God only knows.

This search is not about revealing who stole the phone (and it *is* stolen according to Cali law); it's about determining that Chen (and his employers) must have known that the item his corporation was willing to pay $5000 for (by their own admission) was stolen, or at least failed to take even the most basic measures to verify that it hadn't been.

If this were about Chen's refusal to disclose the previous owner's details, then a) police would have had to ask for them, and b) he would have had to refuse to disclose this information, and c) he would have to have been held in contempt of his legal obligation.

None of that is the case, AFAWK.

The warrant states that


The second point could refer to the source. The first can not. It is reasonable to assume that both apply to Jason Chen, and/or his bosses who authorized the deal.

Gizmodo, by all appearances, and by their own admission, have perpetrated a felony by purchasing stolen goods. That warrants investigation, and immediate confiscation of any means of communication before incriminating evidence (discussion of legal status with Gawker's COO before the purchase, for example) can be destroyed. Hence the urgency and the night-time warrant.

You're killing me.

[starman]

Is anyone here actually defending Gizmodo for what they did?

[starman]

Originally Posted by Eug 

What is the "base of journalistic ethics"? And if it's legal (and that is the question here), why does it matter?

To put it another way, if the NY Times had done what he did, should they be shielded if Chen isn't? If not, then Chen shouldn't be shielded either. If they would be shielded, then IMO so should Chen.

But would the Times do it in the first place? Think about the reason why you picked the Times first - it's because they're respected. Gizmodo doesn't have NEARLY the amount of respect that the Times does. I couldn't see the Times touching that phone with a 10ft. pole.

Now factor in the other part - if the Times can be shielded, so should Chen. Again, Gizmodo is not a trusted publication like the Times is. They never will be.

Then factor in - are bloggers journalists? That's where the real gray area is, but that's not for us to decide, is it? We're not lawyers, the lawyers are lawyers.We're bystanders with a fraction of the information the people involved have.

Time is the only thing that's going to determine the outcome.

Personally, I think it's irresponsible of Gizmodo.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

As in the dude who sold them the phone, yeah.

The search warrant doesn't appear to be aimed at that, and as I said, it doesn't need to be.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You're killing me.

I presume this means you're just having me on, eh?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

The search warrant doesn't appear to be aimed at that, and as I said, it doesn't need to be.

What does this have to do with my wondering about Chen's journalistic background?

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I presume this means you're just having me on, eh?

No, I think you wandered off my path while doing whatever it is you've been doing lately.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by starman 

Then factor in - are bloggers journalists? That's where the real gray area is, but that's not for us to decide, is it? We're not lawyers, the lawyers are lawyers.We're bystanders with a fraction of the information the people involved have.

It's not a relevant issue, either way.

it's also worth noting that Engadget didn't touch the story, except to post the photos they were sent as a sampler.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

What does this have to do with my wondering about Chen's journalistic background?

I have no idea what Chen's journalistic background has to do with this search warrant.

I took your meaning as the warrant being aimed at the source that provided the stolen goods (!= information), which, although it could be, it doesn't need to be.

Had they wanted search engadget, which was offered the same material as well, in order to find the source, journalistic protection would probably apply.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I have no idea what Chen's journalistic background has to do with this search warrant.

Good thing I never said it did.

[ort888]

It's just something interesting. It doesn't have anything to do with anything. We're having a discussion... on a discussion board. CraZy!1!!

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That wasn't a serious answer, fellas. That was more of a "Late night show monologue" answer.

And what's the deal with bloggers? I mean, "web-loggers"? There's no trees on the internets, fellas! I mean what's the deal?

[starman]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

It's not a relevant issue, either way.

it's also worth noting that Engadget didn't touch the story, except to post the photos they were sent as a sampler.

Exactly why I mentioned them. I think Engadget knew they'd be in serious trouble, or at worst, deal with a serious inconvenience that would be paid with time, money, or both. I'll bet Joshua thought they shouldn't touch it.

To make things worse for Gizmodo, they GLOATED about it all. The fact they got it, the fact they spent $5k on it. It's like they were asking for trouble.

[Spheric Harlot]

Too slow. NM.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by starman 

Exactly why I mentioned them. I think Engadget knew they'd be in serious trouble, or at worst, deal with a serious inconvenience that would be paid with time, money, or both. I'll bet Joshua thought they shouldn't touch it.

I agree that's very likely.

[ort888]

Expert: Invalid Warrant Used in Raid on iPhone Reporter’s Home | Threat Level | Wired.com

[analogue SPRINKLES]

They totally deserve it. They knew what they were doing. They even took the damn thing apart, mentioned the name of the guy who lost it (with picture) and then even post the legal letter scanned. On top of that they say "they beat apple at their own game".

What they did is serious the the press can't be immune to buying stolen properly of someone who "found it", stripping it down and posting it for all consumers and competition to see.

Now people have the idea that if they steal prototypes from work they can sell it to the press.

This will have a big impact on Apple in both a negative and positive way.

On the plus side Jason is anything but jail bait, that poor unfortunate looking fellow.

[starman]

Originally Posted by ort888 

Expert: Invalid Warrant Used in Raid on iPhone Reporter’s Home | Threat Level | Wired.com

Again, are they journalists? Ok, so they get paid to write on the internet. This is new territory for some people because the internet still isn't taken as a serious source of news. Gizmodo THEMSELVES shot themselves in the foot with the CES 2008 fiasco.

[The Final Dakar]

I don't see how they aren't. Is the very definition of what they gave us (information on an upcoming product from apple) news?

What else would they be categorized as?

[Phileas]

Originally Posted by starman 

because the internet still isn't taken as a serious source of news.

BBC
NYT
CBC
CNN
Huffington Post
The Guardian

etc, etc, etc. All delivered online.

[starman]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I don't see how they aren't. Is the very definition of what they gave us (information on an upcoming product from apple) news?

What would else would they be categorized as?

Bloggers.

I mean, I'm not making a LIVING off delomni, but if I did what Gizmodo did, would I be classified differently?

[starman]

Originally Posted by Phileas 

BBC
NYT
CBC
CNN
Huffington Post
The Guardian

etc, etc, etc. All delivered online.

Again, all respected sources long before the internet existed. Try again.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by starman 

Bloggers.

I mean, I'm not making a LIVING off delomni, but if I did what Gizmodo did, would I be classified differently?

Oh come on. I meant in "real world" terms.

Edit: i.e., if they did everything the same, only they put in print, what would they be?

[starman]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Oh come on. I meant in "real world" terms.

Edit: i.e., if they did everything the same, only they put in print, what would they be?

But that's the point. Nobody who does anything "in print" would ever touch it.

The Times wouldn't. Pogue would have a fit.
Wired wouldn't.
The BBC wouldn't.

...and on and on.