The Editor's Desk

Interesting piece by Lucy Dalglish in the spring edition of “The News Media & the Law,” published quarterly by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Dalglish lays out the case for a “function test” courts have long used to define a journalist, and suggests the test could be adapted to delineate journalist bloggers from non-journalists.

Some people outside the news business are surprised when “traditional journalists” readily accept that some bloggers qualify as journalists. That seems obvious to me. Regardless of how someone distributes information, if they’re collecting and accurately reporting facts to the public, they’re serving a news-gathering function. Today, thanks to the Web, they no longer need a printing press to do so.

The definition of a journalist is increasingly important in an era when some members of the criminal justice system are intent on using subpoenas to coerce journalists into doing their jobs for them. Many bloggers lack the resources to fight subpoenas for notes and sources. Actually, many traditional media outlets lack those resources anymore. Extending First Amendment protections is an important battlefront on the horizon to stop the continuing spread of a dangerous practice that threatens to undermine the independence of news media – whether that’s a fully staffed newspaper or a single blogger working from her home.

Our Washington, DC, bureau’s series about Guantanamo detainees angered some readers who felt we were giving terrorists a forum to complain about their treatment in the U.S. prison. The bureau’s eight-month investigation found the the U.S. had imprisoned, even abused, some men who were innocent, but that point seemed to be irrelevant to some of the callers I talked to this week.

One told me that these people were all trying to kill us, and whatever treatment they got in Gitmo was deserved and justified in the name of fighting terrorism. A few readers have countered with letters published in the paper, arguing that any nation built on the rule of law does not ignore human rights in denying detainees due process.But the series clearly hit a nerve among readers who felt it sympathized with terrorists. You can find a wider range of Guantanamo coverage here at blogrunner.

One reader asked what I thought about the announcement earlier this week that the Los Angeles Times was turning over its magazine to the newspaper’s business side, and would no longer produce it in the newsroom.

Last year we published a story noting that California was one of the top 10 states from which people were moving to Wichita. I’m assuming this question came from a displaced Californian who hasn’t been weaned from the news from home. I haven’t read many details about the magazine change, but the reason cited is familiar to every newsroom of every size in the country – in an era of tightening resources in newsrooms, what is the best and most effective way to deploy your staff and carry out your core mission, however you define it?

In our newsroom, that’s covering local news and providing better watchdog reporting of institutions and authority. Granted, the L.A. Times has a mammoth staff compared to ours, but nevertheless, the decisions have to seem just as difficult. What do you give up to do better at what’s most important? Newsrooms today have to be clear about how they define their core mission. Most can no longer do everything – so what is most important?

I see the magazine move as a case of doing just that. I can run through news industry Web sites and in 15 minutes cite dozens of examples of media redirecting resources – either people or technology or ink/paper (the biggest expense for print media next to people). And I include magazines in that, not just newspapers and broadcast media.

We are truly living in a media revolution. People use media in ways that have changed dramatically and continue to do so at a stunning pace. The options for the media navigating the seas of change are to figure out how to adapt or get left behind. Incidentally, Howard Weaver, VP for News at our parent company, pontificated on this recently on his blog.