January 7th, 2009
Murmurs • Amid The Challenges, A Commitment To Show Up.0 comments
January 7th, 2009
Hot Air | An Oregon chemist tends the fires of global-warming deniers.1 comment
January 7th, 2009
Rogue of the Week • Barack Obama | Partying on our last dime18 comments
January 7th, 2009
Mobile Sten | What’s the man who was City Hall’s biggest deal maker doing in Bend?0 comments
January 7th, 2009
The Weekly Fix • Just Like Starting Over0 comments
January 7th, 2009
Cover Story • Jody De Simone Wants To Kick Your Ass | A Pearl District PR woman takes a “crash course” in mixed martial arts.39 comments
January 7th, 2009
Clearing The Smoke | More fights and outdoor urination, plus other predictions after the new smoking ban’s first week.
January 7th, 2009
The Score • Estate Of Denial | Think prosecuting elder abuse will be easy under Newly passed Measure 57? Maybe not.2 comments
January 7th, 2009
Letters to the Editor • Inbox0 comments
January 7th, 2009
Ask the Editor • What Were We Thinking? | WW Editor Mark Zusman answers your questions about our coverage.0 comments
![]() |
[May 16th, 2007] When Oregon passed its "Shield Law" offering strong protections to reporters' notes and other confidential info from judicial subpoena, there were no bloggers.
The year was 1973. And Oregonians in that Watergate year were concerned about shielding "people connected with, employed by or engaged in a media of public communication including print and broadcast media, books, periodicals, pamphlets, wire services or feature syndicates."
But 34 years later, as Congress deliberates a broader federal shield for reporters (see "Shields Up," WW, May 9, 2007), Oregon's law has yet to be asked a more modern question: Does it protect bloggers, an occupation/avocation not a decade old?
While Oregon's shield has never been tested to see if it covers bloggers, its broad definition of whom it protects leads most to believe—and hope—that bloggers would be included.
Wendy Culverwell, president of the Society for Professional Journalists' Oregon chapter, says bloggers are welcome under the shield.
"The question isn't, is this person a certified journalist?" says Tim Gleason, dean at the University of Oregon's School of Journalism and Communication. "It's, is the person engaging in a function that serves the greater public interest?"
Gleason cited UO's recent Payne Awards for Ethics in Journalism as an example of the broadening term of "journalist." A special mention was given to Josh Wolf, an independent blogger who spent more than eight months jailed in California for refusing to hand over a videotape of an anarchist demonstration to a federal grand jury. He was freed April 3 without ever testifying about the tape.
"My personal view is that there should be broad protection," says Gleason.
Jack Orchard, a Portland lawyer whose clients include the Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association, says you'd be "really hard-pressed" to read the law as excluding bloggers. Stephanie Soden, a spokeswoman for Oregon's Department of Justice, says it's "debatable" if the current law covers bloggers and that it's unclear whether the courts or the state Legislature will sort out that debate.
Kari Chisholm — who runs BlueOregon.comfor "progressive Oregonians" — calls himself an advocate, not a journalist. But Chisholm thinks the law should protect him and his ilk, saying, "To me, being a journalist should not be based upon the media which you use."
The One True b!X, a longtime local blogger whose most recent endeavor was trying to stop proposed changes to Portland government, doesn't think he's considered a journalist. "But it doesn't matter, because I still commit acts of journalism,'' he says. "The courts would be insane not to include bloggers."
RECENT COMMENTS ON “The Blog Fog”










