Digital media Law Project reporting:
When considering whether to grant legal protection for the gathering and
dissemination of information, the question should not be the person
performing those acts, i.e., “who is a journalist?,” but “is this an act of journalism?”
Before the user-generated content revolution, focusing on journalists
(i.e., people defined by their institutional affiliations) served as a
functional if rough approximation of the true interests at stake (i.e.,
debate on issues of public concern). That is no longer the case...
...
But professional journalists now share the information ecology with a
much wider array of members of the public who care about particular
communities and issues. These individuals can often speak from deep
personal knowledge and identify important information that others might
miss. And from the Rodney King incident forward, there has been
recognition that sometimes informing the public is not about education
and professional commitment, but about being in the right place at the
right time. Institutional media organizations still play an important
role in conveying information gathered by individuals to the public at
large, but the Internet provides many other paths to an audience. The
citizens involved in bringing this information to the public don't need
to be called "journalists" for the information they possess to have
value (although these people are entitled to respect and are free to
argue their right to that title). Regardless of names, the manner in
which this information of public importance is gathered and conveyed is
entitled to no less protection than traditional newsgathering.
http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2013/who-journalist-here-we-go-again%E2%80%A6?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CitizenMediaLawProject+%28Digital+Media+Law+Project%29
No comments:
Post a Comment