Three media stories of note for Tuesday, March 12, 2013:

A proposed Texas law rearranges the obligations of media and the opportunities for litigants in defamation cases. Nieman Journalism Lab reports on the proposed "retraction statute" that would oblige those who believe they have been defamed to contact publishers to give them an opportunity to retract, correct or clarify with the same prominence as the original publication. If they do so, a plaintiff can't be awarded punitive damages. If they do, they are entitled to a reasonable amount of information that can confirm the error. Out-of-court efforts would be made, too, to avoid expensive and protracted legislation. The bill would promote "truth in publication."

Gawker's Deadspin blog, known for its verve, has taken a detour in its approach and suddenly opened itself to a public "contributor network" with the same creative tools as its writing staff. It has PandoDaily pronouncing it as throwing in the towel and taking the route toward Huffington Post and Bleacher Report and away from its original path. PandoDaily's Bryan Goldberg says all media properties need to embrace the fact that more traffic is better than less, professional writers are not the only valid voices, and innovation is the only route out of the challenging economics.

Veteran news executive and advisor Gordon Crovitz weighs in on last week's spat between freelance journalist Nate Thayer, who worked for him in Cambodia, and The Atlantic Online. It will be recalled that The Atlantic wanted Thayer to rewrite his reporting fot them free. Crovitz, writing for the Wall Street Journal, laments this and notes that the tumult in journalism is driven by declines in advertising. Some journalism will be free, but the important journalism will require underwriting. "We need to find ways of paying for it," he concludes.


 
 
In his Media Decoder blog, David Carr notes a court ruling this week that has potential implications for Americans asserting themselves as journalists.

A blogger who was sued for defamation could not use Oregon's law to defend her use of material from a source --- in effect to try to shield her from the suit --- because the court ruled she was not entitled to the privileged position of mainstream media the law provides.

The court noted she was not affiliated with a media organization or entity. The law was written before blogging emerged. She has been ordered to pay $2.5 million in damages in the case.

Her defence was unusual, in that she was asserting the offending post was based on an anonymous source. She argued she deserved protection as a publisher under the law. 

While experts believe the ruling will have little effect on journalism, it will stimulate debate on the definition of a journalist in the digital age and the possible need for legal reform to reflect the new definition. 
 

DA25E68FDEC14EAFA7B2A27D26C48058