Debate about Crystal Cox blogging case misses a key legal point

A Montana blogger has reopened an often-debated question: “Who’s a journalist?

In the $2.5 million judgment in a defamation suit against Crystal Cox, a self-proclaimed “investigative blogger,” many journalists initially reacted to the Judge’s ruling that Cox is not considered a journalist and therefore does not deserve protection under Oregon’s shield law. Since then, journalists have discovered that their defense of Cox may be misplaced. In fact, even if the courts had considered her a journalist, under Oregon law, the shield law would not have protected her from this civil action for defamation.

Cox posted claims to her website, Bankruptcy Corruption, that Kevin Padrick, an Oregon lawyer was a “Thug, Thief and a Liar” because of his actions in a bankruptcy case. She interlaced her opinion with facts based on anonymous sources.

Padrick filed a defamation suit against Cox for the statements she published. Cox argued that under the shield law, she did not have to produce her sources.

A shield law protects journalists from having to share sources and information unless the source is: relevant to the matter, unobtainable any other way, and the need for the information is compelling to the public interest. Forty states currently have shield laws and they vary by state.

One of the main takeaways from this case is that Oregon, like many shield laws that exclude online publishers from protection, may need an update, but does not grant publishers the freedom to publish defamatory content.

“My advice to bloggers operating in the state of Oregon is lobby to get your shield law improved so bloggers are covered,” said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told the AP. “But do not expect the shield law to provide you a defense in a libel case where you want to rely on an anonymous source for that information.”

The lack of consistency and clarity also adds to the confusion. A federal shield law was proposed by Congress in 2009 — and even then the House and Senate could not agree who should be considered media. Hence, no controlling federal law exists, leaving it up to each state to create its own laws. Therefore, bloggers need to be aware of the protection afforded to them in their home state, and in any state where their subject could bring a claim.

It is important that online publishers do their best to prevent publishing defamatory content. Actually, the judges’ ruling, while it may limit who is considered a journalist too much, does offer some good advice as far as how journalism should be done. Here are three factors mentioned:

(3) Proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest.

Journalistic standards like accuracy and transparency are important. The Internet lets us publish instantaneously without an editor, but everyone can benefit from a second set of eyes checking their work and preventing mindless errors.

(6) Creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others;

There is great value to creating independent products rather than simply aggregating others’ work. We have a fire hose of information available to us, and it’s important for publishers to help their audiences make sense of this overabundance by guiding them to the most important and relevant information. And, what’s even more crucial is that this sensemaker take in all of the available information, suspend judgement, then, synthesize and add context.

(7) Contacting ‘the other side’  to get both sides of a story.

Finally, it is important to present all sides of the story. One key step in critical thinking in journalism is gathering multiple perspectives. Rarely is a story one-sided. A story is incomplete if it doesn’t include ideas from a diversity of perspectives who can help tell the whole story — and add credibility to any bold statements you may be making about a subject.

Until the Supreme Court chooses to define exactly who and what media is (and isn’t) or a federal shield law is passed (which is more likely), the outcome of cases like this — and the protection afforded to online publishers — will depend on the interpretation of state shield laws and therefore be somewhat less predictable. But careful, responsible journalism can reduce the risk in any state.

Related online learning:

In addition to being a Poynter faculty member, Ellyn Angelotti is a 3L at Stetson University College of Law.

We have made it easy to comment on posts, however we require civility and encourage full names to that end (first initial, last name is OK). Please read our guidelines here before commenting.

  • http://www.mesrianilaw.com Los Angeles Injury Attorney

    $2.5 million is a no joke.
    This is an eye opener for those critics online. Better register yourself to a law that shields your from law suits like this. Blogger or journalist? The difference is very big.

  • Anonymous

    I have many online businesses. Also the conversations for these services was a back and forth negotiation and was after they filed a lawsuit, it was also two attorneys negotiating as I was pro se.  Many companies offer this service, dig deep and make sure you have all the facts.  This story is years deeper then one email out of several that is a “Mirage” to hide the Truth about the US bankruptcy system that affects Millions.  Find the Truth.

  • http://twitter.com/vJayByrne Jay Byrne

    Further, a little digging shows that Cox offered her services to “clients” to help repair online reputation problems – problems her activities created.  She maintains over 200 websites on which she posts and cross posts her extreme claims – the main purpose of which appears to be to create online visibility for the negative attacks she writes and get the attention of her targets. In this court case, once her extreme allegations started to influence the reputation of her target, she then offered him her services to help fix his online reputation.  That certainly leaves the appearance of someone who is more involved in blackmail than journalism.

    Her fee for service marketing materials also suggests she can help lawyers with discovery and and related aspects of the types of court cases she purportedly is reporting on as an “investigative journalist.”  Defaming and dragging targets into court via separate cases on behalf of unscrupulous litigators for the purposes of discovery and revelations not accessible via existing trials is worthy of investigation and exposure if it has occurred.  Cox’s business as a reputation manager and suggestive offerings to aid litigators should be seen at a minimum as a clear conflict of interest for any journalistic claim or activity.  This is not the profile of a journalist by any stretch of the imagination.

  • Elizabeth Williams

    Your first paragraph is a little misleading. You say “many journalists initially reacted” and then assert that “journalists have discovered their defense may have been misplaced.” Yet, you cite the same person in both instances: David Carr at the NYT. Probably the one useful takeaway of Page One is that Carr is no friend to nontraditional media. 

    There have, however, been several other high-profile media critics, like Dan Gillmor in the Guardian or Dan Kennedy in HuffPost, who haven’t walked back on their defense.  I’ve no idea why David Carr should get to speak for everyone.