The cost of citizen journalists

[Nino Giannotti]

The hidden cost of ignorance.

In the last year and until I was banned from participating in any discussions on Rosenblum blog, we argued about the importance of maintaining integrity and a strict code of ethic on the profession of journalism. I stated that people in a position of influencing other should discourage those who have not received proper training and education from playing the role of journalist. I also argued about the consequences of inaccurate reporting. Rosenblum who for his own financial gain is in favor of anyone becoming a journalist went as far as calling a class of student journalist at a NY university “communists” because they did not share his views on citizen journalists. His claims were always that the freedom of speech (except on his own blog) should prevail no matter what, education and training is unimportant and unnecessary. Rosenblum in his teaching openly stated that research, investigation and verification of facts is unnecessary and unheard in today's journalism.

My opinion was and still is that journalism is a responsibility not to be taken lightly and handing keyboards and video cameras to incompetent people would be like giving guns to the mentally unstable. Unfortunately untrained citizen journalists can not be prevented from writing whatever they want to write, but there's a price to pay for shooting off their mouth (or keyboard) and the consequence of not being properly trained could be very costly

Professionals Tip Citizen Journalists (AP)
Robert Cox, president of the Media Bloggers Association, said more than 100 judgments valued at $17 million have been handed down against bloggers in the past three years - about 60 percent for defamation, 25 percent for copyright infringement and 10 percent involving privacy.
"It's the tip of the iceberg," Cox said. "Bloggers are being asked to write checks. The threats against bloggers are very real. The costs are very real."

Full story (http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jun/14/bz-professionals-tip-citizen-journalists/)

[Another side]

The hidden cost of ignorance.

My opinion was and still is that journalism is a responsibility not to be taken lightly and handing keyboards and video cameras to incompetent people would be like giving guns to the mentally unstable. Unfortunately untrained citizen journalists can not be prevented from writing whatever they want to write, but there's a price to pay for shooting off their mouth (or keyboard) and the consequence of not being properly trained could be very costly

Professionals Tip Citizen Journalists (AP)
Robert Cox, president of the Media Bloggers Association, said more than 100 judgments valued at $17 million have been handed down against bloggers in the past three years - about 60 percent for defamation, 25 percent for copyright infringement and 10 percent involving privacy.
"It's the tip of the iceberg," Cox said. "Bloggers are being asked to write checks. The threats against bloggers are very real. The costs are very real."

Full story (http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jun/14/bz-professionals-tip-citizen-journalists/)

I'm trying to figure out what your point might be. Are you against "citizen journalists" unless they're (in your view) properly educated and trained ... thereby making them simply, "journalists"?

Is your point that if citizen journalists present unsubstantiated rumors as facts, or ignore someone else's copyright rights or invade their privacy ... that they could get sued ... like real journalists?

Why is it "unfortunate" that citizen journalists "cannot be prevented" from writing whatever they want? Would you support efforts to "prevent" them given the opportunity?

[Mighty Dyckerson]

I'm trying to figure out what your point might be.

No point. He's just trying to protect his job.

[TVMattNYC]

I'm trying to figure out what your point might be. Are you against "citizen journalists" unless they're (in your view) properly educated and trained ... thereby making them simply, "journalists"?

Is your point that if citizen journalists present unsubstantiated rumors as facts, or ignore someone else's copyright rights or invade their privacy ... that they could get sued ... like real journalists?

Why is it "unfortunate" that citizen journalists "cannot be prevented" from writing whatever they want? Would you support efforts to "prevent" them given the opportunity?

I think his point is that too many of these "citizen journalists" aren't journalists at all (i.e., "truth seekers"), but rather people writing whatever they want to write, whether it's truth, propaganda, or just outright lies, and PASSING IT OFF as "journalism".

Kind of like what FOX does, only on an individual level.

[interloper]

Call the majority of citizen journalists what they really are.

Propagandists who have little or no desire to report as much of both sides of an issue as possible.

They prefer one side. And that side can be held up with as few real facts or attributions as need make their views sound sourced. Even if they are complete fabrications.

[Nino Giannotti]

Why is it "unfortunate" that citizen journalists "cannot be prevented" from writing whatever they want? Would you support efforts to "prevent" them given the opportunity?

I tell you what, you pick which “prevent” you think would be more appropriate, because there are a few.

First is “preventing” others to be slandered by brainless idiots with keyboards that think the first amendment protection gives them the right to say anything they want about anybody.

Second is to prevent real journalists, those educated and trained, those with integrity and who adhere to code of ethics and who can really provide a public service from being mixed with a blogger population full of idiots.

But lastly and this is the most important is to protect idiots from themselves. Those legal actions and those rewards are real. With a number of 17 millions in only 3 years be assured that there is a small army of ambulance chasing lawyers that are going over every blog in existence looking for a payday. We’ve heard about the official judgments awarded by the courts, we don’t know how many have settled out of court. If this follows the standard statistics probably there are ten times as many that never made it if front of a judge. The problem is real. That AP article talks about a group of people with a 300,000K grant ready to educate uneducated bloggers.

The lazy and ignorants are easily influenced, as long as you tell them that education is unnecessary you got an audience, especially when the source could be a self proclaimed professor of journalism and VJ teacher the likes of Michael Rosenblum. MR openly and publicly stated that research, investigation and verification of facts are unnecessary and unheard in modern journalism. The reason is simple, any journalist who would undertake these basic ethic requirement would become under productive by Rosenblum standards, making money for him takes priority over accuracy and integrity. When I went to journalism school research, investigation and verification of findings were the top priorities. This of course was 40 years ago, I guess things have changed. Today fairness and truth in journalism is determined by legal actions.

My suggestion, for whatever is worth is that you can not prevent blogger from being bloggers but we should protect the public from crap. For the best public interest, so people could be assured that the written information is accurate would be the institution of a blogger association with a seal of approval for those journalists who have received training and pledged to conduct themselves professionally by adhering to a strict code of ethic. The association could provide legal assistance for those finding themselves at the receiving end of a legal action, there’s strength in number.

[Rosenblum]

"Unfortunately untrained citizen journalists can not be prevented from writing whatever they want to write"

Unfortunately?

Unfortunately?

This, of course, is what they used to say in The Soviet Union, where they licensed journalists.

Hitler. Mussolini. Mao. Robert Mugabe. History if filled with those who 'controlled' a free press for the 'protection' of the citizens.

Our Constitution protects the rights of anyone to write whatever they want....whenever they want. We call this the First Amendment.

It's a pretty important thing.

A little knowledge of basic American History would be helpful here.

[Nino Giannotti]

"Unfortunately untrained citizen journalists can not be prevented from writing whatever they want to write"

Unfortunately?

Unfortunately?

This, of course, is what they used to say in The Soviet Union, where they licensed journalists.

Hitler. Mussolini. Mao. Robert Mugabe. History if filled with those who 'controlled' a free press for the 'protection' of the citizens.

Our Constitution protects the rights of anyone to write whatever they want....whenever they want. We call this the First Amendment.

It's a pretty important thing.

A little knowledge of basic American History would be helpful here.

Michael, do you mean like preventing me from replying in your blog by deleting all my posts that do not agree with what you have to say?

Or your threat of taking legal action against a poster for saying truthful things about you that you didn't like?

"The First Amendment Rights (the Rosenblum version)"

Let me add something else Michael, our point of views differ on what our roles in broadcasting should be. I have always been pro consumer and pro viewing public, while your priority is to make money for the bosses, we went over this many and many times. We can not prevent anyone from publicly being an idiot, so thank goodness for lawyers. Apparently in all these cases judges do not share your opinion about the rights of the first amendment, listening and following your suggestions not only will lead to a life of poverty but there's a real danger that it could lead to a financial disaster. If everyone was intelligent then you would have an argument, but your fortune comes from exploiting ignorance and laziness and that carries a lot of consequences for those stupid enough to believe in you, I'm sure lawyers love you.

[Rosenblum]

Michael, do you mean like preventing me from replying in your blog by deleting all my posts that do not agree with what you have to say?

Or your threat of taking legal action against a poster for saying truthful things about you that you didn't like?

"The First Amendment Rights (the Rosenblum version)"

Nino,
here is your first lesson in how the First Amendment works.
A free press means that I can write and publish what I like
And you can write and publish what you like.
The New York Times can publish what it likes.
Just because you write a letter to The New York Times, they are not required to publish it.
A free press does not mean that I can be compelled to publish on my site, what you like.
Do you now understand this, or do you need an even simpler lesson?

[Chicago Dog]

Mikey, stop trying to demonize Nino just because he understands the reprocussions of poor journalism far better than your ignorant-ass.

As you apparently have no intention of confronting the questions on the board you decided to criticize (a true "journalist" would go right to the source instead of running around it), I'll gladly repost my response from b-roll.net here instead. So here you go, coward:

Curiosity got the better of me. Nino's write-up caused me to wander over to Mikey's blog. If anything, it looks as if he's got a proof-reader now. There's been an astonishing improvement in grammar:

I am reminded of this when I read today about a ‘warning’ of the cost of “Citizen Journalism” posted on b-roll.net, the website for professional videographers - a class deeply threatened by the new technology. The ‘Warning”, entitled, “Costly Citizen Journalism”, gives a reference to an article in the Tampa Bay Online paper. The article points out that there have been “100 judgements against bloggers, totaling $17 million in the past 3 years”

Scary stuff!

The b-roll folks fall over themselves trying to figure out ways to ‘control’ the bloggers.

Since I know this question won't be approved in Mikey's blog, I'll ask him (as it's very apparent he still lurks):

Exactly where are we "falling over ourselves" to "control" bloggers? Of everyone here, why are you accusing others of maniuplation?

You've edited responses Nino's posted in your blog in order to allow you an opportunity to poke holes in his rationale. There you go. A perfect example of manipulation.

What we are seeing here is pure fear mongering.

Uh-huh. You mean, like this?

"You're all going the way of the dinosaur. Adapt or die!"

But wait! It gets better:

We don’t defend the First Amendment for nothing. It’s the basis of all we believe.

Mikey, it's hilarious you scream "Oppression!" and point at the First Amendment.

You banned Nino from commenting in your blog. A perfect example of oppression. Instead of allowing Nino to express his right to free speech in your very convoluted blog, you decided to take away his First Amendment rights. Why? You don't like what he's saying.

There's a seat open for a well-versed fellow like yourself in that island south of Florida, if you're interested. Castro's brother ain't half the oppressive, fear-mongering shіt-talker you are.


Hitler. Mussolini. Mao. Robert Mugabe. History if filled with those who 'controlled' a free press for the 'protection' of the citizens.

Aaah, right, right. You mean like banning Nino from your blog because you didn't like his viewpoints, thus "protecting" your "readers."

By the way, why are you associating yet another member with anti-Semitism when you know it's not true? That's not very journalist-like!

here is your first lesson in how the First Amendment works.
A free press means that I can write and publish what I like

Remember that time you threatened me with a lawsuit for speaking out against your poor teaching ability? That was awesome.

Journalism is not about "printing whatever you like" and then hiding behind the First Amendment. Journalism is about facts. Plain and simple: get it right or pay the price.

Why is it so difficult for a supposed "professor of journalism" to grasp that concept?

[Nino Giannotti]

Nino,
here is your first lesson in how the First Amendment works.
A free press means that I can write and publish what I like
And you can write and publish what you like.
The New York Times can publish what it likes.
Just because you write a letter to The New York Times, they are not required to publish it.
A free press does not mean that I can be compelled to publish on my site, what you like.
Do you now understand this, or do you need an even simpler lesson?

Michael, you mean " The Rosenblum's version of the First Amendment"

Michael I write to newspapers, not to state my opinions but only when I see something inaccurate or unfair, and my letters are always posted. I do not write to start a topic or state my opinions, it's strictly a reply.

My involvement with you blog started early last year when it was brought to my attention that you were copying my posts from other forums and misquoting them to you advantage.

In the following months my posts on your blog were limited to questioning inaccurate statement you made about this profession. It just turned out that your inaccuracy was getting out of control, just about everything that you were posting was inaccurate and just plain wrong. I was simply asking questions and asking for explanations, which of course you didn't have and I was becoming an embarrassment to you and to you lack of knowledge of this business. Others started questioning your knowledge and I'm convinced that's what causes you from being eliminated form teaching your VJ concepts to broadcasters, you are officially out of television teaching. The only one that you can get away with are those who do not know anything about television or broadcasting productions, I was becoming an expensive embarrassment so it was easy to just eliminate the questions.

I have a complete list of those questions and I have invited you to a one to one open exchange so you can address all those questions but like always you went into hiding.

[Rosenblum]

Dear Nino
You are allowed to write to newspapers to express your opinion.
Try it some time.

[Nino Giannotti]

Dear Nino
You are allowed to write to newspapers to express your opinion.
Try it some time.

Again, the sidestepping champion raise again. Now is my time to try to figure what this has to do with the topic in question, but with you I should be used to your clever ways to sidestep the issues.

I know all that Michael, but I'm more interested in getting answers than stating opinions. But why don't you tell everyone why you are preventing me from, and God only knows how many others, from posting on your blog? After all you are consistently bad mouthing my profession, why can't we reply.

Remember I have copies of all my posts, even those that you deleted.

[Chicago Dog]

(dodge)

Coward.

How's the boat? If it's anything like your arguments, it sunk to the harbor's bottom a long time ago.

[Rosenblum]

Here is a link to a very interesting piece on this issue:
http://rosenblumtv.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/be-afraid-be-very-afraid/

and actually Nino, you are the only person whose input I don't publish.

The fact that you have saved all the posts is a bit... concerning.
I would call this an unhealthy fixation.

[Nino Giannotti]

Here is a link to a very interesting piece on this issue:
http://rosenblumtv.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/be-afraid-be-very-afraid/ (http://rosenblumtv.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/be-afraid-be-very-afraid/)

Yes, I particularly like the reply you got.

from Rosenblum blog

steve // June 15, 2008 at 3:00 pm (http://rosenblumtv.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/be-afraid-be-very-afraid/#comment-5601)
We have laws that do not impinge on a free press, but provide protection to people who could be damaged by irresponsible reporting. There are also copyright laws that protect the rights of content owners. Citizen Journalists and Bloggers, like the press, should be held accountable if they violate these laws. The few bloggers that have judgments against them most likely deserved it for violating somebody’s rights. There is a responsibility that comes with creating media content whether you are a blogger, a VJ or the New York Times.


and actually Nino, you are the only person whose input I don't publish.

I'm humbly honored.

The fact that you have saved all the posts is a bit... concerning.
I would call this an unhealthy fixation.

I call it smart business. It's not a fixation Michael it's business, by popular demand soon I will start conducting seminars on advance lighting and interviews techniques and you are the best resource for demonstration material of how things shouldn't be done. That picture of you in front of a window has become a classic standard of bad photography and poor teaching, it just happened that both came from you, keep it up Michael.

[Rosenblum]

Well I am honored as well.
And of course, I am using your Hotel Videos in my own classes as classic examples of how you can bore people to death. Good work!

[Nino Giannotti]

Well I am honored as well.
And of course, I am using your Hotel Videos in my own classes as classic examples of how you can bore people to death. Good work!

Good thinking Michael, you might also add that for the seven days that I get hired to shoot each of those resort videos I get paid as much as your VJs in Washington hyperlocal make in 6 months. Of course my first class travel to these Caribbean resorts and 6 nights in a suite would also bore them to death.

[Rosenblum]

7 days! 6 nights in a suite! The whole thing runs 1 minute!
Hoo boy! What a waste of money. (I would talk more, but I gotta take a call from Hilton Hotels. Later!)

[Nino Giannotti]

7 days! 6 nights in a suite! The whole thing runs 1 minute!
Hoo boy! What a waste of money. (I would talk more, but I gotta take a call from Hilton Hotels. Later!)

That's right Mike, actually those are four minutes pieces and my fee is for shooting only. But do take the Hilton call, I understand they are having a hell of a time filling janitors positions and that's right up your alley.

BTW, are you going to tell us why you have banned me from your blog?

[Another side]

and it has comment capabilities for readers. I decide which comments get published and which don't. I decide which readers can comment and which can't.

I decide what stories/articles/pictures go on it and which don't.

I paid to have it designed, I pay all the expenses and I pay for the server and domain name. It is MY site.

I assume Rosenblum's is the same. Why do you think he owes you an explanation for not letting you post?

[Nino Giannotti]

and it has comment capabilities for readers. I decide which comments get published and which don't. I decide which readers can comment and which can't.

I decide what stories/articles/pictures go on it and which don't.

I paid to have it designed, I pay all the expenses and I pay for the server and domain name. It is MY site.

I assume Rosenblum's is the same. Why do you think he owes you an explanation for not letting you post?

Now I understand the logic, thanks for explaining to me. So those 17 millions in judgments against blogger were all wrong and unjustified. The bloggers owned and paid for the sites and they can write anything they want about anybody without having to give any explanation or be accountable for what they write. Makes sense.

[cameragod]

To me the problem I have with Michael banning Nino from his blog is he is still (mis)quoting Nino and then denying him a chance to reply. Who needs that?
Soon the only posts left on the Blog will be Cliff Etzel “Well said Michael” “Good point Michael” “you are so right Michael” "If I ever get anny work at all Michael will you VJ with me?" “I love you so much Michael” ...Where is the 'tonguey kiss' icon when you need it? :)

[Another side]

Now I understand the logic, thanks for explaining to me. So those 17 millions in judgments against blogger were all wrong and unjustified. The bloggers owned and paid for the sites and they can write anything they want about anybody without having to give any explanation or be accountable for what they write. Makes sense.... You're an idiot.

[Another side]

To me the problem I have with Michael banning Nino from his blog is he is still (mis)quoting Nino and then denying him a chance to reply. Who needs that?
Soon the only posts left on the Blog will be Cliff Etzel “Well said Michael” “Good point Michael” “you are so right Michael” "If I ever get anny work at all Michael will you VJ with me?" “I love you so much Michael” ...Where is the 'tonguey kiss' icon when you need it? :)

I know that if I get a reputation of not posting certain readers' remarks, traffic will fall. I know that if I post only remarks I agree with, traffic will fall. If traffic falls, my three puny advertisers may also bolt.

So one would think any anti-Michael Rosenblum folks would welcome his site traffic being reduced to just one kiss-ass, right?

But wait! You're obviously reading it ... and your friend Nino is obviously still reading it. So he will have (by your projections) one kiss-ass and two enemy combatants to keep the site breathing.

I'm not following your guys' logic. Yours seems counter-productive and your friend Nino simply doesn't have any.

[cameragod]

You have a good point and I shouldn’t bother dropping into his site. But slow news days and company broadband after reading the online comics I end up having a look in. It gets to the point where he is just endlessly repeating (like a bad take-a-way) and to be honest some of the comments are the only reason to visit. But even the number of them is down. No more 37 replies topics no matter how rabid or 'contraversial' Michael gets.

I must admit the whole newspaper thing is interesting. I know nothing about newspaper journalism. I am surprised that they would seriously look at a model that failed so badly for TV but then maybe bad craft, week journalism and fluffy features will be good for newspapers?

All I know is the day he declines or edits one of my replies I’ll be gone for good.

[Nino Giannotti]

... You're an idiot.

Wow man, did you have to consult with your buddy Rosenblum to come up with such a brilliant and intelligent answer? That's his style, when you can not come up with a logic answer then by offending and patronizing people they might go away.

[Another side]

I must admit the whole newspaper thing is interesting. I know nothing about newspaper journalism. I am surprised that they would seriously look at a model that failed so badly for TV but then maybe bad craft, week journalism and fluffy features will be good for newspapers?

Newspapers are in trouble and some publishers believe the answer is on-line video. My own theory is newspaper readers don't care one whit for on-line video ... they care about local news. Still photos will suffice ... as they did in the glory days of newspapers.

As far as getting edited or rejected when you submit something to a website ... that's the publisher's right. And you have every right to no longer submit comments or remarks.

[!]

7 days! 6 nights in a suite! The whole thing runs 1 minute!
Hoo boy! What a waste of money. (I would talk more, but I gotta take a call from Hilton Hotels. Later!)Of course, when YOU want to try to prove superiority, you claim you make more in 4.5 minutes than we make in a year. Funny how you only buy that argument when you make it, Rosie.

[Nino Giannotti]

7 days! 6 nights in a suite! The whole thing runs 1 minute! Hoo boy! What a waste of money.

To tell you the truth sometime I do feel a bit guilty for getting paid in one day what many people make in a month and working in places where most people could only dream of ever seeing, but these are corporate giants so they can well afford it, but I tell you why my guilt doesn't last very long, I think of you at TCA charging consumers $2500 to teach what one of your own instructor said that can be found in any beginner video book for about $20

On the reality side, from his exchange yesterday 28 people signed up to EFPlighting, the highest one day ever, still crumbs by comparing to what you charge but my goal is just to pay for the site expenses, that's my way top give back to this profession. I guess the lure of learning quality work and making 2K per day far surpasses your lure of making 30K per year.

[PSUWx]

Is getting upset at 'citizen journalists' having the potential to write a story or discover some news item with similar success as a 'real' one the same as when a union certified electrician gets upset when a homeowner heads over to Home Depot for a new circuit breaker and some wire?

[Another side]

But it's becoming real clear the title of the thread ("The cost of Citizen Journalists" ) was just a lure ... the Original Poister didn;t really want to talk about bloggers ... he wants to talk about Rosenblum.

[Nino Giannotti]

But it's becoming real clear the title of the thread ("The cost of Citizen Journalists" ) was just a lure ... the Original Poister didn;t really want to talk about bloggers ... he wants to talk about Rosenblum.

The only clear thing here is that you are unclear of what's going on. The original thread was intended to protect stupid bloggers from the damage that they can cause to themselves. It so happen that they are encouraged to continue on their present course by Rosenblum who has a vested interest in making sure that people do not use their brains, because if they did he would be out of business. If there were ten Rosenblums out there they would get the same treatment.

Do you have any idea of what he wrote on his blog after my first post?

From Rosenblum blog.
Let’s put this in perspective. 100 suits against bloggers. According to Technorati, there are more than 70 million bloggers in the world. 70 million. 100 suits. That means that (ready?) the odds on getting sued are .0000000129. These numbers are so miniscule as to be virtually non existant. The odds on getting killed in a terrorist attack are vastly higher.Any idiot would say that according to Rosenblum the original AP article is meaningless and the odds of getting sued are indeed miniscule. Do you see anything wrong here? Think for a second.

Did you figure out the deception?

Rosenblum use 70 millions as the number of world wide blogs, but those legal actions are here in the US not around the world, suddenly the odds change considerably and the odds of finding yourself in front of a judge who did not buy the freedom of speech argument are very real and no longer miniscule.

Do you seriously think that what Rosenblum did was responsible? And this is just one of the things that he does that affect others, mostly those with lower intelligence, his bread and butter type of crowd.

[The Mockingbird]

I don't agree with Rosenblum's snakeoil about the industry, or his shoddy techniques.

However, I disagree that we should discourage citizen journalists. That's ridiculous, since there's no real standard of accreditation for a journalist. Some people come from Broadcast schools, some from Universities, and Peter Jennings didn't even have a High School Diploma.

What we should be doing is encouraging responsible journalism. Multi-sourcing whenever possible, attempting to report free of bias and factual error.

I would argue that your argument of "protecting" the citizen journalist is a backward rationalization of the stance you want to be true.

[Chicago Dog]

However, I disagree that we should discourage citizen journalists. ... What we should be doing is encouraging responsible journalism.

This isn't about discouraging "citizen journalists."

This is about calling out the shoddy teaching of a supposed "professor of journalism," who doesn't understand that the First Amendment is not an iron-clad defense against everything. He's saying libel and defamation is okay. Then, something that should piss off any journalist: he says it's a First Amendment right.

It's classic Rosenblum: he's giving people a very wrong idea about journalism. Then, when someone else calls him out, he twists their words around in order to cover up the sting of embarassment. After that, he adds a word or two that gets attention. In some cases, he screams "anti-Semite!" In this case, he's screaming "Oppression!" He points a finger. In this case, it's Nino.

Point is, he's a professor of journalism. He should know better, yet he sees nothing wrong with giving people the absolute wrong idea. He doesn't care what ultimately happens to those who take his advice, so long as it helps him keep his boat, his apartment in Manhattan, and his house in the Hamptons.

He's a sleaze of a so-called "professor" willing to use his bad ideas to sell out anyone for The Almighty Dollar.

[Another side]

The only clear thing here is that you are unclear of what's going on. The original thread was intended to protect stupid bloggers from the damage that they can cause to themselves. It so happen that they are encouraged to continue on their present course by Rosenblum who has a vested interest in making sure that people do not use their brains, because if they did he would be out of business. If there were ten Rosenblums out there they would get the same treatment.

Do you have any idea of what he wrote on his blog after my first post?

Any idiot would say that according to Rosenblum the original AP article is meaningless and the odds of getting sued are indeed miniscule. Do you see anything wrong here? Think for a second.

Did you figure out the deception?

Rosenblum use 70 millions as the number of world wide blogs, but those legal actions are here in the US not around the world, suddenly the odds change considerably and the odds of finding yourself in front of a judge who did not buy the freedom of speech argument are very real and no longer miniscule.

Do you seriously think that what Rosenblum did was responsible? And this is just one of the things that he does that affect others, mostly those with lower intelligence, his bread and butter type of crowd.

No ... I don't know what Rosenblum said and don't care. I thought this was a thread about "citizen journalists" and since retiring after 30-plus years in the media, I now are one ... so the topic was of some interest to me.

But all it really is is a starting point to address your obsession with Rosenblum. That's your right ... have at it. I can find another thread far more interesting.

[Chicago Dog]

I can find another thread far more interesting.

Soooo... instead of just going away, you decide to write up responses about how you're going to go away.

Why not just drop the "holier than thou" attitude, and just -- I don't know -- go away?

[Consider This]

Professionals Tip Citizen Journalists (AP)
Robert Cox, president of the Media Bloggers Association, said more than 100 judgments valued at $17 million have been handed down against bloggers in the past three years - about 60 percent for defamation, 25 percent for copyright infringement and 10 percent involving privacy.
"It's the tip of the iceberg," Cox said. "Bloggers are being asked to write checks. The threats against bloggers are very real. The costs are very real."

Full story (http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jun/14/bz-professionals-tip-citizen-journalists/)

Sounds like the problem is sorting itself out. If you don't know that you can't libel people, steal their content or invade their privacy without getting your pants sued off, you can get used to "being asked to write checks" until you learn.

[The Mockingbird]

We shouldn't be discouraging people who want to take up the craft just because they didn't go through X school of journalism, since the vast majority of us know that an academic education in journalism is next to worthless compared to on-the-job training.

What we should be discouraging is the Wal-mart Greeter model for training VJ's on a wholesale basis, because that isn't helping anyone.

Citizen journalists should largely be viewed as non-professional journalists. Some will make the transition, yes. The vast majority, will not.

[Nino Giannotti]

Sounds like the problem is sorting itself out. If you don't know that you can't libel people, steal their content or invade their privacy without getting your pants sued off, you can get used to "being asked to write checks" until you learn. Good thinking man, you a real colleague. Don’t ever try to prevent these things from happening “let them sort themselves out”, what a great advice. I thought that this is what these forums supposed to do, help our colleagues and prevent them from doing stupid things.

This entire thread was about the danger of listening to a person with the power of influencing weak minds with his own screwy opinions driven only by his over inflated ego and a thirst for the almighty dollar. Because those who do listen to him might find themselves in front of a judge and probably turning over everything they have to an attorney. What are they going to tell the judge, that Rosenblum said that it was okay? Do you think that he would stand up for them after they got into deep troubles for following his advises? Get real man.

This has nothing to do with Rosenblum. If the person giving the stupid advises was name Archibald then Rosenblum name would not appear here, it just so happen that those idiotic advises came from Rosenblum and after knowing him for almost six years his collection of bad advises can fill the library of Congress.

[Consider This]

This entire thread was about the danger of listening to a person with the power of influencing weak minds with his own screwy opinions driven only by his over inflated ego and a thirst for the almighty dollar.

You're sounding more and more like a total kook with every post.

Unfortunately for you we live in a country based on the idea that people are free to make their own decisions and must bear the responsibility for the consequences.

I can't tell for sure because your posts aren't very coherent but you seem to be suggesting that we need to curtail the First Amendment to protect people from themselves -- that journalists should be licensed before they can practice the craft. The whole idea behind the freedom of the press is that the government does not decide which people get to own presses.

There have never been official specifications for journalists. If you could convince a newspaper, magazine or TV station to hire you, that was all the certification you needed. Now with the Internet, that restriction has been lifted. Anyone can do it. It doesn't mean they should but the laws of the country respect their right to try. Writers have to beware what they write because their freedom to say what they want -- while broad -- is not limitless.

It also means that readers have to consider the source of the information they're getting. I'm sorry to report to you that in this country we have to trust the citizenry to recognize the credibility of a given source for him or herself.

I can't believe I just had to type that. Even sadder is that you still won't understand. Guess what? That, too, is your right.

[Chicago Dog]

I can't tell for sure because your posts aren't very coherent ...

English is Nino's second language. He's mentioned this before.

... but you seem to be suggesting that we need to curtail the First Amendment to protect people from themselves ...

Wrong. He's pointing out the irresponsible teachings of Rosenblum -- a supposed "professor of journalism" -- who seems to think the First Amendment allows you to write anything you'd like. Rosenblum is dismissing journalistic responsibility in favor of giving people a very wrong idea about excercising their First Amendment rights.

Writers have to beware what they write because their freedom to say what they want -- while broad -- is not limitless.

That's Nino's point, in a nutshell.

[ISTHISTHINGON?]

I would hope that Freedom of Speech doesn't include someone writing lies about me or anyone for that matter. If it's proven to be unfactual and hurts someone....that should be reason to seek legal action.

[Nino Giannotti]

You're sounding more and more like a total kook with every post.

Unfortunately for you we live in a country based on the idea that people are free to make their own decisions and must bear the responsibility for the consequences.

I can't tell for sure because your posts aren't very coherent but you seem to be suggesting that we need to curtail the First Amendment to protect people from themselves -- that journalists should be licensed before they can practice the craft. The whole idea behind the freedom of the press is that the government does not decide which people get to own presses.

There have never been official specifications for journalists. If you could convince a newspaper, magazine or TV station to hire you, that was all the certification you needed. Now with the Internet, that restriction has been lifted. Anyone can do it. It doesn't mean they should but the laws of the country respect their right to try. Writers have to beware what they write because their freedom to say what they want -- while broad -- is not limitless.

It also means that readers have to consider the source of the information they're getting. I'm sorry to report to you that in this country we have to trust the citizenry to recognize the credibility of a given source for him or herself.

I can't believe I just had to type that. Even sadder is that you still won't understand. Guess what? That, too, is your right.

I can make no sense in five languages, while you make no sense in just one. Actually I think that you are extremely confused, I have no clue how you came up with licensing when we were talking about training, education and make people aware that there could be consequences in writing. The freedom of speech granted by the first amendment might appear to be free, but 17 million dollars in judgments is not exactly free; actually that freedom can be very expensive. You ASSume that everyone knows the right thing to do, but apparently a $340,000 grant to teach blogger what not to say or what not to do kind of disprove your theory.

So let’s see what is happening in the real word. Here we have a professor of journalism that continuously tells everyone to go ahead and it’s okay to say what you want. Then on the other hand we have judges handing out monetary judgments because people did exactly what that professor of journalism told them that it was the right thing to do. And you see nothing wrong with this picture?

You are right, people should be allowed to do whatever they want and if they make the wrong decision they will pay the price, right? Government should not interfere, right? Do you know that in many states you get ticketed for driving without wearing a seat belt? That’s wrong too? After all that’s considered by many an invasion of privacy and privacy just like freedom of speech is also protected by the constitution. I’m in my own car and I can do whatever I want as long as my choices do not affect other citizens. But apparently the government felt that some people are too damn stupid and we need rules to protect idiots from themselves.

Granted, violating the first amendment will not send people to graveyards, but never make the assumption that everyone is capable of making the distinction between right and wrong because if they did there would be no need for a $340,000 grant for bloggers. Fortunately for these people there are organizations that are not as selfish as you are and are willing to give their time and money to educate others. Just like there are many organizations that educate people on the importance of wearing a seat belt.

[Consider This]

I stated that people in a position of influencing other should discourage those who have not received proper training and education from playing the role of journalist.

What is the proper training and education of a journalist?

Who decides when one has been properly trained and can safely play the role of journalist?

Who decides who are the idiots who need protection from themselves? What is that protection? What does an idiot have to do to demonstrate that he is safely able to operate a blog?

And if you weren't suggesting licensing, what was that nonsense in a later post about seat belt laws supposed to mean?

The problem isn't language translation, it's that you can't seem to make a cogent point. Your arguments are as elastic and convenient to the moment as Rosenblum's.

[Bandit]

Sounds like the problem is sorting itself out. If you don't know that you can't libel people, steal their content or invade their privacy without getting your pants sued off, you can get used to "being asked to write checks" until you learn. Couldn't agree more. By way of comparison, I also wonder how much money "trained" journalists and news outlets have paid out in libel suits the last three years?

[Nino Giannotti]

What is the proper training and education of a journalist?

Who decides when one has been properly trained and can safely play the role of journalist?

Who decides who are the idiots who need protection from themselves? What is that protection? What does an idiot have to do to demonstrate that he is safely able to operate a blog?

Wow man, maybe I should start drawing little pictures. I don't pretend to be very intelligent but I'm not really that stupid either.

Let's see if this make any sense to you. If I had a grant of $340,000 to train blogger on how to stay away from legal actions what should I do. Maybe I should look at the court records and find out why were those 17 million awarded and start my training on how to avoid those first.

Does this make too much sense?

I would say that this is a much better solution than just waiting for the problem to resolve by itself as you suggested.

[Consider This]

They were simple questions. They were not rhetorical. And all you could come up with was more gibberish.

Thanks for your valuable insight.

[Nino Giannotti]

Let me put it in a way that maybe even you can understand.

Who decides when one has been properly trained and can safely play the role of journalist?
This isn't brain surgery, if one can't figure this one out a judge will, but by then it might be a bit too late.

Who decides who are the idiots who need protection from themselves?
Anyone who is stupid enough to believe in what you and Rosenblum are saying are good candidates.

What is that protection?
A $340,000 grant and bunch of volunteers.

What does an idiot have to do to demonstrate that he is safely able to operate a blog?
Stop listening to you and Rosenblum its a good start. If he pretends to be a journalist at least he should know the reason why the courts handed out 17 millions in judgment. If he is a real idiot and believe that the first amendment gives him the rights to say whatever he wants, a lawyer for the plaintiff will soon do the demonstration.

I still can't figure where are you going with all this. Are you saying like Rosenblum does that it's okay for blogger to go ahead and write whatever they want?

[Desert Rat]

The first amendment only protects speech against the government and its actions. It doesn't have anything to do with speech against individuals or businesses.

[Nino Giannotti]

A posted this a few months ago on B-roll, I think is appropriate for this thread too.
This is a new definition that I’ve never heard before, Big Mac Journalist.

This past week I shot an interview with a well known retired sport personality and still very active in many areas.

Somehow the interview drifted into modern journalism and this is when he mentioned his very own definition of a new wave of journalists, The Big Mac Journalists as he calls them because according to him until last week they worked at McDonald.

I’m sure that his remarks will not make the show as it was unrelated to the topic, he was just venting, so before sending the tapes out I made a little transcription.

Here you have these new guys that show up with a camera that looks like they just bought in Walmart. The first thing they do is try to figure how that thing work. The camera battery is usually dead so they ask me if there’s an outlet that they can plug-in. After they find one they ask me to move because the cord doesn’t reach far from the wall. They use no lights just what’s there. I’m not vain but everybody like to see themselves half-way decent, I’m going bold and with the overhead lights these guys make me look like an upside down light bulb. Then they start asking questions, I give them my answer and is like talking to the wall, they’ll do everything but looking at me; they’ll check their notes and look at their Mickey Mouse camera to make sure it’s working, then when I’m finished they have no idea what I said. Doesn’t really matter because most of the times I have no clue of what their question is all about and when I ask for some clarification they don’t know it either. I ask them where they got their information and they tell me from blogs. YOU GOT IT FROM A F*@#* BLOG? You lazy bastard, and where the guy from the blog got it? But they have no clue, probably from another blog. There was a time when a journalist would research their questions and verify for accuracy, but no more, now as long as they can read it somewhere is good enough for these guys. My time is much too valuable, I rather be playing a round of golf than waste it with these clowns, no more interviews unless I know who they are and where the stuff is going. Web or not, even if it’s lousy it still has to be accurate; somebody might actually see that garbage.

[Consider This]

Are you saying like Rosenblum does that it's okay for blogger to go ahead and write whatever they want?

My previous posts in this thread explain quite clearly what my beliefs on the matter are. They do not include people being able to say whatever they want with impunity. If you bother to read them, you will see that. I have made my point amply and adequately. I have tried to get you to do the same and all you have offered are the kinds of misdirections and distortions that you attribute to Rosenblum.

It is where you are going with this that remains a mystery. And one I no longer have any interest in solving. Please continue in your crusade, whatever its point may be.

[Chicago Dog]

It is where you are going with this that remains a mystery. And one I no longer have any interest in solving. Please continue in your crusade, whatever its point may be.

That's strange -- you're the only one who doesn't understand what he's talking about.

[Rosenblum]

There is an inherent irony and a great lesson about the true nature of the Free Press within this very thread.

While there are some on here who argue vehemently about only truth telling and facts on blogs, allow me to quote directly from this thread. As they all relate to me rather directly, I of course take a great interest in their journalistic 'accuracy'.

"making money for him takes priority over accuracy and integrity."

"your fortune comes from exploiting ignorance and laziness"

"Castro's brother ain't half the oppressive, fear-mongering shіt-talker you are"

"Rosenblum who has a vested interest in making sure that people do not use their brains"

"the power of influencing weak minds with his own screwy opinions driven only by his over inflated ego and a thirst for the almighty dollar."

Are these 'facts'?
Is this 'journalism"

You may argue that in 'your opinion' this is all 'true'.
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
I might not agree with it, but I will defend to the death your right to publish these so called 'facts' and opinions, no matter how objectionable, insulting or inaccurate I may personally find them. I find far more objectionable the idea that you would not be free to express them.

Do you now have some small but perhaps better understanding of what a Free Press means?

[Nino Giannotti]

You are right in many ways Michael, what I think the most damaging of all writing is deceptive Journalism for the self purposes of the blogger.

Let me give you an example of something that happened very recent. I wrote this a few days ago on this board.

The hidden cost of ignorance.
My opinion was and still is that journalism is a responsibility not to be taken lightly and handing keyboards and video cameras to incompetent people would be like giving guns to the mentally unstable. Unfortunately untrained citizen journalists can not be prevented from writing whatever they want to write, but there's a price to pay for shooting off their mouth (or keyboard) and the consequence of not being properly trained could be very costly

Professionals Tip Citizen Journalists (AP)
Robert Cox, president of the Media Bloggers Association, said more than 100 judgments valued at $17 million have been handed down against bloggers in the past three years - about 60 percent for defamation, 25 percent for copyright infringement and 10 percent involving privacy.
"It's the tip of the iceberg," Cox said. "Bloggers are being asked to write checks. The threats against bloggers are very real. The costs are very real."
I thought my point was clear, (to most anyway) it was my opinion that bloggers in order to stay away from the courtrooms need to be trained on the financially devastating consequences that could be caused by their writing.

Well, a blogger extracted this line from my post
Unfortunately untrained citizen journalists can not be prevented from writing whatever they want to write, and used it totally out of context on his blog to promote his own propaganda:

One cameraman posting about Citizen Journalists on medialine wrote:
“Unfortunately untrained citizen journalists can not be prevented from writing whatever they want to write”
Unfortunately.
Yes, well that is sort of the basis of the First Amendment; but you can see the fear that this democratization instills.
And now, major media companies are just starting to come to grips with the revolution that these new technologies (cameras+edits+internet) have precipitated. And how are the responding? Pretty much the way they always respond to dynamic new technologies:
First, they close their eyes and hope they will go away. The message here was the old: “Look established cameramen are afraid of us meaning that we must be right”

This is a typical example of deceptive journalism and even thou this particular topic is harmless, the very same example but with a different topic has the potential of becoming a serious liability for the writer.

I’m sure you recognize the deceptive blogger Michael, it’s you.
http://rosenblumtv.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/the-fk-ups-in-the-corner/

[Rosenblum]

Actually Nino, I provided a link on my blog so that everyone could read every word you wrote, no matter how idiotic. There was nothing deceptive in that. Your calling it 'deceptive' on the other hand, I think, is.

Incidentally, here is one of the 100 (or 70 million) bloggers who have run afoul of the law. This is an American citizen and blogger arrested in Singapore for 'insulting' the Singapore Supreme Court and forced to pay a fine.

The First Amendment, by the way, protects us from this kind of action here... so far at least

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080602140528.9wnrpke3&show_article=1

Singapore, a country that 'controls' its bloggers in a way that people like Nino would really admire, is nothing to aspire to.

[Chicago Dog]

Actually Nino, I provided a link on my blog so that everyone could read every word you wrote, no matter how idiotic. There was nothing deceptive in that.

No, you didn't. You provided a link to B-Roll.net. The deception lies in the fact that you could've provided a link directly to Nino's post. You obviously chose not to. I find it interesting you chose to omit this part:

Rosenblum, (beside calling me many names) went as far as calling a class of students journalist at a university “communists” because they did not share his views on citizen journalists.

For those who didn't know, Rosenblum's recently switched gears. He's no longer incorrectly accusing others of being anti-Semitic, he's incorrectly accusing others of being communist.

I've taken the liberty of finding the link for you. I'd ask you to kindly edit your unobjective blog entry accordingly, but you won't:

http://www.b-roll.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20944

Funny how you can provide direct links only when it supposedly agrees with your side of the argument.

I'm reminded of the time you provided us a link to a study that supposedly proved more people get their news from the internet than television.

Of course, you didn't bother telling anyone it was a study that was conducted online.

By the way -- are you going to man up about incorrectly accusing me of being anti-Semitic? It's been a while, so I thought I'd ask and see if you've had a change-of-coward-heart.

[Chicago Dog]

For those of you who are interested, here's the entry in which Rosenblum associates entire groups of students with communists. And, should Rosenblum decide he wants to delete the entry (because that's just the kind of guy he is), here it is in all its ignorant glory.

The entire entry was capped off by this painting:

http://rosenblumtv.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/lenin.jpg?w=261&h=337

"and that’s the way it is…”

Yesterday and today we have been teaching a VJ course at CUNY’s new Graduate School of Journalism.

On Wednesday last week, I gave a lecture at the journalism school at the State University of NY at Stony Brook.

In both cases, of course, we talked about “the Revolution” in technology, the web and the ability of anyone to ‘be a journalist’.

This caused deep distress among the journalism students. Maybe because the craft they are paying to learn is now no longer so ’special’?

Many of them, schooled to a large degree in the ‘conventional’ view of Journalism (despite both Judy Watson and Barbara Selvin opening the door to us), expressed deep angst over the idea of ‘anyone’ being able to get a camera and make ‘anything’!

“Where is the control?” they asked, aghast!

They all wanted to know where the ‘editorial’ controls are.

“Who will guarantee that this is true?”

(I read something similar to this on Safran’s Lostremote yesterday).

This anxiety is funny, coming from an institution that prides itself (at least says so), in a “free press”.

Well, guess what? We have not had a ‘free press’ until now.

CBS v. ABC; Matt Lauer v. Dianne Sawyer is NOT a free press.

Up until now, we have had a very Soviet Press. It was controlled. Not by the state, but rather by a handful of paternalistic media corporations who we ‘trusted’ to make sure everything was ‘OK’.

Well, of course, for more than 40 years, it has very much not been OK.

The disaster in Iraq, (which I lay to a great extent at the feet of a passive media), is the result.

The very idea of turning the most powerful informational medium in the world over to Katie Couric, Brian Williams and a handful of network execs’ to entrust to them the content of our information and public discourse on a regular basis carries the seeds of cultural suicide.

Now, for the first time, we are at the precipice of a real Free Press.

And you know what? Free presses are messy.

They are supposed to be.

We’re going to have a thousand voices saying a thousand different things.

Good.

Bring on the storm.

We need it.

We have lived in the Soviet News World for far too long.

And like the former residents of the Soviet Bloc, we have gotten used to being spoon fed. We cannot imagine a world without ‘controls’.

That 22 year old students feel this way is all the more tragic.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, economic advisers such as Jeffrey Sachs suggested a ‘cold turkey’ approach to building a Capitalist economy.

The former Soviet citizens were aghast (much as the students at CUNY and SUNY): “I don’t understand”, they say. “Without People’s Collective Farm Number 87, where will the food come from?”

Without Katie, how will we know what is true.

We will know.

Trust me.

Sorry, Mikey. It ain't the '50s anymore. Labeling someone a "communist" in an effort to get them to shut up doesn't work.

[Mr. Pratfall]

My gift for Chicago Dog:

http://web.bvu.edu/staff/harderr/wookiee.jpg

[Rosenblum]

Dear Chicago Jellyfish

You are SO SHOCKINGLY STUPID it is hard for me to begin to comprehend.
The point of the essay is not to 'label' the students as 'Communists'.
I appreciate the reprint. Try reading it again and see if you can 'get' it.
(This would be the Reading Comprehension part of the SAT that you did so badly on a few years ago)

Hoo boy..

Soooooo dumb it is hard to believe.

[Chicago Dog]

Sure it's not, Mikey. Suuure.

Don't make your embarassment so obvious!

[Nino Giannotti]

Singapore, a country that 'controls' its bloggers in a way that people like Nino would really admire, is nothing to aspire to.

Michael, I've been telling you this for the last six years, you have a serious comprehension problem, as well as a very overactive imagination, you only see what you would like to see. Where on earth did I posted that government should regulate or control bloggers. My post was strictly about the legal danger of writing and the importance of getting educated to avoid getting financially into hot water. In your own mind you saw it as an infringement on the first amendment even thou nothing was mentioned about that.

You also told me that you are an attorney then you should know this. Most people who are potentially liable never find themselves in front of a judge unless they violated specific laws, being a stupid writer is not a violation of the law but saying the wrong things could be a civil case. The government will only get involved if the writing compromise national security. For a civil action we need a plaintiff and an attorney and therefore there's no direct government involvement. Before an attorney decides to take legal action he will search for the defendant assets, in few words is there anything there worth going after and most of the times in not worth the cost of the attorney. So you can well assume that most likely there are not one hundred but thousands that are liable but their fortune is that they don't have anything worth going after.

You might also be interested in the latest post on B-roll

I was a victim MR and was forced to become one of his VJ's at a station that I have since left.
He once explained to me that I didn't need to get both sides of an issue in the same story.
It was that moment that I started to look for another job.

MR doesn't know what he is doing and he has no business training random people to become "journalists".
End of story. __________________

So the other side of the story is not necessary, great going Mr. professor of journalism.

[Rosenblum]

Nino
You will note that your posting here about me is a bit 'unballanced' and you fail to adequately portray the 'other side of the story'.

Yet here it is. Posted by you.

Thus, have you violated your own codes of journalism for bloggers?
(all a bit confusing, isn't it?)

QED

[interloper]

This is a message board.

Not a blog.

One would think you would know the difference.

These are opinions that are never meant to be balanced little news stories.

Learn the difference. It's not any different than the letters to the editor page of a newspaper where, there like here, news stories are not what is being presented but opinions.

Many bloggers want to claim they are journalists but the majority don't have a clue what is and isn't real journalism.

Offering opinions, which are clearly labeled as opinions and not journalism is all fine and good.

[Nino Giannotti]

Nino
You will note that your posting here about me is a bit 'unballanced' and you fail to adequately portray the 'other side of the story'.

Yet here it is. Posted by you.

Thus, have you violated your own codes of journalism for bloggers?
(all a bit confusing, isn't it?)

QED

Actually Michael, this board is a vast improvement over your blog, here we are both allowed to post our opinions.

[Rosenblum]

Actually Michael, this board is a vast improvement over your blog, here we are both allowed to post our opinions.

And you keep putting your foot in your mouth post after post. But tell me, when will I be able to post my opinions on YOUR website?

[Nino Giannotti]

And you keep putting your foot in your mouth post after post. But tell me, when will I be able to post my opinions on YOUR website?

If I had a dime every time we went thru this.... so let me give you the same answer again. If you have any question about lighting or feel that you can contribute in anyway, even advance lighting or anything else about productions, e-mail me at info@efplighting.com I will answer you personally and if the question is unusual and will benefit others I will post the e-mail and my answer in the section on EFPlighting.com "Write to Nino". I get at least one hundred e-mails a month from all over the world. You can also post your questions here or on B-Roll or send me a PM, If I recall you've done it once yourself and I gave you an answer immediately. I have no problem sharing my 38 years of experience if I can help anyone, and I have done it for years without asking or expecting anything in return.

You on the other hand in six years that you have been hanging around these boards all we've been hearing from you is how successful you are, how much money you make and how many big names you know. In six years you have not made a single positive contribution to anyone in these boards.

Why on earth would you want to reply to me even if I had a blog, I've been embarrassing the crap out of you anytime that you bad mouth my profession.

[Chicago Dog]

Mike, how do you sleep at night knowing 99.9% of what you promise to those starry-eyed suckers in your TCA classes won't come true?

My gift for Chicago Dog:

http://web.bvu.edu/staff/harderr/wookiee.jpg

And you made it your icon! I love it.

"Will someone get this big walking carpet-journalist out of my way?"

[Jax]

Well that thread was a waste of time.

I'd be interested to know how much the major media outlets and locals paid out in lawsuits over the past year. I know I've been sued (I won) and my woman has been sued (she won) and every station I've worked at has been sued.

Something tells me the "legit" journalists have paid out more than the bloggers over the past year.

[Chicago Dog]

Well that thread was a waste of time.

And yet -- after it lay dead in the water for three days -- you revived it.

Something tells me the "legit" journalists have paid out more than the bloggers over the past year.

Don't act ignorant and play off the fact that everyone who tries to sue someone else does it on a "legit" level. Mass media outlets have a much bigger target on their backs than some idiot blogger that doesn't know the difference between "firewire" and "bias."

[interloper]

Put "blogger lawsuit" into a Google search and you will see the exploding area of law concerning bloggers who don't think before they write.

I'd put some of the links here, but it will be easier for others to just run the search themselves.

Leave it to lawyers to pick up the slack when law enforcement or codes of ethics are unable to keep those doing wrong in line.

[Nino Giannotti]

Well that thread was a waste of time.

I'd be interested to know how much the major media outlets and locals paid out in lawsuits over the past year. I know I've been sued (I won) and my woman has been sued (she won) and every station I've worked at has been sued.

Something tells me the "legit" journalists have paid out more than the bloggers over the past year.

So what's this, keeping up with the Jones? Laziness and ignorance in journalism on any level can be costly. I’m sure that established organizations have legal actions going on against them continuously and so is every corporation in this country. For them most likely is an ongoing learning process or a calculated risk and also the cost of doing business. The difference here is that journalists affiliated to established news organizations have a legal staff to consult with when in doubt; bloggers have none of this legal support available to them. Without this protection they are vulnerable to every ambulance chasing lawyer that found something to grab-on (assets). Saying that research and verification of fact is not necessary is totally irresponsible and damaging to anyone stupid enough to believe in this. Pretending that the problem doesn't exist is irresponsible and just plain stupid.

Why on earth would anyone argue against a basic of education that might keep them out of trouble is incomprehensible, nobody is holding a gun against their head saying that this is the way that they have to do it, is just learning some common sense. If you write without getting all the facts before you start writing then all you are doing is stating you opinion and for lawyers that's as good as slender.