Do Bloggers have to give up their sources?

She is trying to play both sides which is unethical.

Great post!  A new area that the law and courts haven't yet examined or ruled on.  Should be interesting to watch this unfold.  Please be sure to publish the outcome. 

Great post and I read most of the above comments. Many people call themselves journalists but do they work for a newspaper or are they just some self appointed watchdog who is out there making accusations to stir up trouble? People who say malicious things about political officials or just people in the community may get sued in court and should if the information is not true and cannot be backed up with facts; slander and liable and then the courts can decide if the blogger is within their rights to make accusations without facts.

I used to work for the county and employees are allowed to file harassment charges but they cannot do it anonymously. If they have the truth to tell, then they have to put their name to it. Many would not file it when they found they had to sign their letter. Does that make people wonder? Absolutely.

Frankly, If a person knew public employees had stolen generators, why not go and report it to the police. Those items have serial numbers and can easily be traced back to the source. Let the police uncover the truth but to put it in an article and not put all the facts, that is not good journalism or blogging in my opinion. Check up what Slander and liable is.

I read several press releases regarding the generators. Thousands of residential generators were delivered and just sitting there to be handed out to the residents and they were distributed. Are the persons accused of using these generators not eligible of using them just like others in the community? I believe the facts were found that the generators were used by many and all returned for another disaster down the road. I also heard a press release that the accusations were unfounded. Perhaps the person who "squealed" did not get one before they ran out. But whether you are a custodial worker or a person of upper management, all are equally entitled to equipment in a state of emergency.

I must be missing something here.  She is not being asked to give up her source.  She evidently does not have 16 names & should stop wasting everyone's time.

This is a hot topic for me.  My husband worked for all the major TV news networks (FOX not qualifying in this category) and the rules for attribution are pretty strict, although we see plenty of local stations playing pretty loose with the rules.

However, in this case I don't really think this has anything to do with blogging as journalism and the associated rights.  I don't care if they blogged about it or just told a neighbor.  If you as a citizen honestly know of a crime being committed, I think it is your duty to report it.  In this case not so sure there was a crime....maybe just a blogger looking to fuel the fires that light up the numbers on her posts.

Probably because I have a degree in journalism: I don't consider a blogger to be a journalist. True journalists (and I agree with Marti Steele Kilby that Fox does not qualify) use multiple sources, especially when they are using unnamed sources. They label their opinion as such, usually putting it on opinion pages or in pieces labeled as commentary. Now I know that I am old school in my definition of journalism, but bloggers are writing from their own point of view BY DEFINITION!

Journalists have specific training in reporting. Bloggers make up their own rules. A journalist who is shielding a source also has an overseer (editor) who was involved in the decision. Bloggers make up their own rules. Journalists go into dangerous situations, as well as downright boring ones. Bloggers pretty much never risk their lives, and until now, they rarely risk jail time.

Journalists "sources" should be protected and I think a blogger would qualify as there is probably not a true definitive answer or strict qualification to be called a journalist.  However, she should reveal the names since she stated she knows them.  What were her intentions for making such a blanket statement without providing proof and ultimately putting all county employees under scrutiny when most are innocent.

I can see both sides of this, but when illegal activity (if it was illegal and they weren't entitled to use the generators) should be handled by the authorities, not a blogger. I'm not saying she should give the public the names because this makes her judge and jury.

In general, a blog espouses opinions.  A blog's content may be fact-based or opinion-based.  The line of whether bloggers are journalists or not, is a muddy one.  Once there is readership, there is huge potential for opinions to morph into facts and go viral throughout the glorious web.

However, I don't think you can have it both ways - make an allegation or statement about real people's actions without backing those statements up with facts.  Writing something about someone without a factual backup is libel.  

It is natural that the authorities want her sources. She should stick to her guns and protect her source and in my opinion, she should give up the perpetrators.  If she wants to be considered a "Journalist" and get the protections afforded them, she has to make some difficult decisions about the information she puts into her blogs. 

It's not just regular, every-day trolls looking at stuff online, there are government-employed trolls looking at your stuff, too!

I just read comment #100 and I have to disagree with some of the points presented.  I also have a degree in journalism, am an active member of the Society of Professional Journalists (including a several years as a member of the board of directors of the Wyo Pro chapter) and have attended several regional and national conferences where the subject has been discussed. 

There are members of the society who feel that bloggers are journalists and others who disagree.  I personally feel that that some bloggers are very definitely journalists.

Journalism is best defined as: "A journalist collects, writes and distributes news and information." and "While objectivity and a lack of bias are often considered important, some types of journalism, such as advocacy journalism, intentionally adopt a non-objective viewpoint. "  --Wikipedia 

I would also like to add that not all journalist have specific training unless you consider "on the job" training. Many journalists also do create their own personal set or rules or standards.  And many journalists are not directly reviewed by editors.  In fact, in many small markets -- the reporter is the editor.  Also as discussed on many of the international sites, many bloggers have risked and lost their lives in other countries along with receiving jail sentences.  I do feel that we need to learn more about this particular case before we arrive at any judgment as to whether this person is or is not a journalist.

One last point  - regarding the comments about Fox News -- unfortunately,I think most viewers have equally low opinions of all the main stream media.

Gary~ I got nothing but love for you....I love the way you broke this issue down, I hope no one can argue with your opinion, because too me, it's perfect.....

"If we blog about something and we say it's true..it better be, or else...

Love this discussion and I hope we all learn more about the guidelines that journalists are supposed to follow, so we can become better bloggers.

While Tina Renna is being called a political watchdog, she is not doing anyone much good if she will not reveal who was using the generators illegally.  This is not much in the way of reporting if she can throw mud and not reveal any details about the mud.  She is not acting as a reporter (and this could be said for some of the main stream media) without providing details about who is violating the law.  It is almost as if she is protecting the law breakers.  Not what a reporter should be doing.

This is a tough one.  Any idiot can start a blog and claim immunity, just blogging as an excuse rather than with real purpose if the court agrees with her.  However, I think in her case she should have immunity.  She has a pattern and history of blogging in this area.

It will be interesting to see what the court decides. I've read some of the comments many different views. I believe some bloggers are real journalists and others totally make up nonsense with no facts or documentation. Saying you know people who broke the law is not protecting a source. The writer is the source she knows the names.

It's an interesting discussion but more important to us here is are we bloggers with the same protections or are we real estate licensee's with another set of rules.

We're neither bloggers or journalists we are real estate licensees. Being a Realtor or real estate broker takes priority over our blogging.

I've been blogging since 2006 and there have been a few times I had to take down posts because I am a licensed real estate professional and not a journalist. Even though other websites and media had the same information about new developments and anticipated prices of upcoming real estate projects because I am a licensed broker and may or may not be associated with the brokers or dfevelopers marketing these projects. We have different rules to abide.

The NY Times or NY Post can write that prices in the development are expected to range from $500,000 to $6 million. If we as brokers write that same thing before the offering plan or prospectus is declared effective by the attorney General's office it is considered an offer to sell goods and services because we're licensed to sell such goods and services.

I just realized this was a post is from last month but i just found it in an AR drops email.

I had bookmarked this blog and wondered how the case turned out.  Has it come to a decision yet?  I think we are living in interesting times and courts will ultimately be asked to decide, who is the PRESS, and who isn't.  It's going to be dicey making those decisions. 

Like other commentors, I see both sides.  I believe in protecting sources, but that isn't what is being asked of her.  And one has to wonder just how credible her claims are, since she is protecting those she is making claims about. . .For that, it will be the reader to decide how "legitimate" of a blogger, she is!  Is she the Press, or is she just another rumor monger punching a keyboard???

Even during the Watergate era, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, gave the names of those they made claims against, while protecting "Deep Throat."