In Michigan, ‘old media’ are lining up to attack and pillory a Legislative proposal to create a voluntary registry for journalists. Such a registry would allow the public to determine exactly who is calling themselves a journalist, and what their qualifications are to do that.
The news media’s objections to the idea have not been subtle. The idea has been labeled ridiculous and unconstitutional right out of the gate. For better or worse, the idea touched a nerve. And it touched a nerve with the very people who own the barrels of printers ink.
Why should we as attorneys care about questions of journalistic qualification? Well, for starters, journalists have a myriad of special privileges that most people do not enjoy. They enjoy access to people and places, special legal status, and a reputation for being bound by ethical rules and a duty to the public. You take their calls.
Yesterday a colleague shared this story. A few months ago a very well respected bar association was contacted via phone by a journalist. The journalist asked loaded, leading questions that the bar spokesperson wisely refused to answer off the cuff, requesting to gather the needed information and call this journalist back.
Well, after a bit of investigation the “journalist” turned out to be no journalist at all, but a layperson with an amateur blog and a personal axe to grind. This blogger had made it past a couple levels of gatekeepers and been allowed to chat with the spokesperson, all based upon his self-adopted label: “journalist.”
A similar thing happened to me last week. A pushy middle-aged man, dressed in shorts and a t-shirt, describing himself as ‘a journalist,’ came into our lobby with no appointment and began asking our receptionist strange questions in a rude tone.
“Since our members are attorneys, didn’t we have an obligation to allow the public and journalists to attend our private board meetings?” “Since we had [certain words] in the name of our organization, didn’t that imply we had Constitutional obligations to the public??” “Didn’t the First Amendment give [our casually dressed friend] the right to attend our [private] Board meetings, ask for copies of our Board minutes, and generally hang out and pepper us with questions as long as he felt necessary?!?” And, “when could he be allowed to address our leadership to air his grievances regarding our answers to his last few questions???!”
I was quietly asked to come out and ‘handle’ our concerned visitor. I listened to his questions patiently and tried to answer them. But whenever this self-proclaimed journalist made incorrect [frankly, ‘bizarre’ describes them better] assumptions as part of framing his questions, I calmly corrected his misconceptions.
It took all of three minutes for my journalistic friend to storm out of the door without so much as a thank you or goodbye.
Say what you will about First Amendment press protections, but in this new age of ranting bloggers and self-appointed amateur “journalists” I’d sure like to have had some sort of registry to find out who this man was, and through what media affiliation he felt the right to label himself a journalist.
[See another perspective on the problem of news, the Internet, and what is left of journalism in the June 2, 2010 Atlantic ]
Showing posts with label Blogs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blogs. Show all posts
Journalists --show us your papers?
Michigan is playing with the idea of creating a 'registry' for journalists. The idea, according to bill sponsor State Senator Bruce Patterson, is to allow the public access to information on journalists' qualifications and experience.
Given the implosion of the traditional news media, and the rise of the stereotype of the know-nothing, basement-bound blogger,[present company excepted] the idea seems to have some merit. Wouldn't you like to know if the "reporter" who left you a voicemail about your big verdict has a degree and some experience on the legal beat, or is just some unemployed kid with an IP address?
"Your role is critically important to the actual success, perhaps even the survival, of our constitutional republic," Patterson told reporters this week while discussing his bill. "That's why the First Amendment is so important and it's given such elevated status. There are correlative duties and responsibilities if you get a right. And I just think we're squandering this."
But the media --old and new-- have risen up en mass to oppose it. Interesting to ponder why professional journalists would be so opposed to an idea that could separate the wheat from the chaff ... so to speak
Read more.
See the bill language.
Given the implosion of the traditional news media, and the rise of the stereotype of the know-nothing, basement-bound blogger,[present company excepted] the idea seems to have some merit. Wouldn't you like to know if the "reporter" who left you a voicemail about your big verdict has a degree and some experience on the legal beat, or is just some unemployed kid with an IP address?
"Your role is critically important to the actual success, perhaps even the survival, of our constitutional republic," Patterson told reporters this week while discussing his bill. "That's why the First Amendment is so important and it's given such elevated status. There are correlative duties and responsibilities if you get a right. And I just think we're squandering this."
But the media --old and new-- have risen up en mass to oppose it. Interesting to ponder why professional journalists would be so opposed to an idea that could separate the wheat from the chaff ... so to speak
Read more.
See the bill language.
Web 2.0. All The Cool Lawyers Are Doing It
[UPDATE: Lawyers Weekly published a 'ubscribers only' article on this subject on January 25, 2010]
[A caution regarding law firm tweeting, blogging, “friending” and other cute sounding social media projects.]
Before undertaking any communications strategy you should have a clear goal in mind.
So prior to focusing finite resources on legal blogging and twittering and hourly Facebook status updates, pause and take a deep breath and ask yourself: What is your goal?
Why do you desire an Internet presence at all?
More pointedly, why do desire to be a part of social media --so called “Web2.0.”
Are you trying to get your name out to the public to make up for declining views of your ads in the Yellow pages or the dying local newspaper? Are you trying to create a reputation in the legal community as an expert with a niche practice?
Maybe you aspire to recruit clients directly from the Internet? Maybe you plan to keep existing clients informed of firm news? Maybe you want to become a public voice for some relevant legal issue?
Or maybe you see your Web 2.0 presence as merely a formality? Maybe, in other words, you just consider a firm blog or Facebook page necessary because all the other lawyers are doing it?
Do you have a clear answer to this question? If not, stop before jumping into the social media pool and find your answer.
There is no shortage of hype surrounding Web 2.0. Media consultants and PR types are making a good living giving seminars, Webinars, call-in conferences and awarding CLEs teaching you how to social network.
If you listen to some of these self-appointed experts you could be forgiven if you thought attorneys should focus more on cluttering up the Internet and less on the actual practice of law.
Nonsense.
Let me utter a bit of Web 2.0 sacrilege here: Most of the “social networking” phenomena is ill suited to the communications and public relations needs of a law firm.
You don’t need the intimacy and immediacy of social networking. Clients and the public do not want or need to know that you are a ‘fan’ of sunsets or to get ‘tweets’ from you between deps. No one cares to get daily updates about the status of your Board Room remodeling project.
Moreover, there are unsettled ethical and professionalism issues to ponder when an attorney initiates an interactive relationship with an audience of ‘friends’ or ‘subscribers.’ Are you offering legal advice? Are you soliciting clients in a fashion that might run afoul of rules of professional conduct? Are you inadvertently creating an attorney/client relationship, or the appearance of one? Will you someday face a Discovery request for your blog archives or your Facebook ‘friends” list? Ouch.
Social networking purposefully creates an aura of casual familiarity that is often at cross-purposes to your role as legal counsel. A social and professional boundary is crossed when a client has access to photos of their attorney in flips flops and shorts, or holding forth about backyard BBQ or scrap booking.
We in the legal profession dress in business wear, put effort and money into equipping our offices to create a positive impression, and adhere to an overall air of formality for a reason: the law is and must be about dignity and respect. [Take a look at this blog giving examples of FAILS on that count.]
What is to be gained by gossiping with clients or the public about your vacation to Maui and sharing photos of you and your significant other drinking at the poolside bar?
So stop and think about your goals and your practice before you dive headfirst into Web 2.0.
Unless you have a clear goal and unless you know that a particular Internet presence will help you reach that goal, why dedicate time and effort to a project that might be a waste of time, or even counter productive?
Are their potential benefits to creating a legal or law-related blog? Absolutely [you are reading an example]. Could you create a communication plan that incorporated a Facebook page? Certainly.
But don’t waste your time clogging up the Internet with tweets and photos and gossip unless you have clear goals and you reasonably think a Web 2.0 project could help you reach those goals.
Don’t blog just because all the other lawyers are doing it.
Just to be clear: I am a firm proponent of law firm Websites
[A caution regarding law firm tweeting, blogging, “friending” and other cute sounding social media projects.]
Before undertaking any communications strategy you should have a clear goal in mind.
So prior to focusing finite resources on legal blogging and twittering and hourly Facebook status updates, pause and take a deep breath and ask yourself: What is your goal?
Why do you desire an Internet presence at all?
More pointedly, why do desire to be a part of social media --so called “Web2.0.”
Are you trying to get your name out to the public to make up for declining views of your ads in the Yellow pages or the dying local newspaper? Are you trying to create a reputation in the legal community as an expert with a niche practice?
Maybe you aspire to recruit clients directly from the Internet? Maybe you plan to keep existing clients informed of firm news? Maybe you want to become a public voice for some relevant legal issue?
Or maybe you see your Web 2.0 presence as merely a formality? Maybe, in other words, you just consider a firm blog or Facebook page necessary because all the other lawyers are doing it?
Do you have a clear answer to this question? If not, stop before jumping into the social media pool and find your answer.
There is no shortage of hype surrounding Web 2.0. Media consultants and PR types are making a good living giving seminars, Webinars, call-in conferences and awarding CLEs teaching you how to social network.
If you listen to some of these self-appointed experts you could be forgiven if you thought attorneys should focus more on cluttering up the Internet and less on the actual practice of law.
Nonsense.
Let me utter a bit of Web 2.0 sacrilege here: Most of the “social networking” phenomena is ill suited to the communications and public relations needs of a law firm.
You don’t need the intimacy and immediacy of social networking. Clients and the public do not want or need to know that you are a ‘fan’ of sunsets or to get ‘tweets’ from you between deps. No one cares to get daily updates about the status of your Board Room remodeling project.
Moreover, there are unsettled ethical and professionalism issues to ponder when an attorney initiates an interactive relationship with an audience of ‘friends’ or ‘subscribers.’ Are you offering legal advice? Are you soliciting clients in a fashion that might run afoul of rules of professional conduct? Are you inadvertently creating an attorney/client relationship, or the appearance of one? Will you someday face a Discovery request for your blog archives or your Facebook ‘friends” list? Ouch.
Social networking purposefully creates an aura of casual familiarity that is often at cross-purposes to your role as legal counsel. A social and professional boundary is crossed when a client has access to photos of their attorney in flips flops and shorts, or holding forth about backyard BBQ or scrap booking.
We in the legal profession dress in business wear, put effort and money into equipping our offices to create a positive impression, and adhere to an overall air of formality for a reason: the law is and must be about dignity and respect. [Take a look at this blog giving examples of FAILS on that count.]
What is to be gained by gossiping with clients or the public about your vacation to Maui and sharing photos of you and your significant other drinking at the poolside bar?
So stop and think about your goals and your practice before you dive headfirst into Web 2.0.
Unless you have a clear goal and unless you know that a particular Internet presence will help you reach that goal, why dedicate time and effort to a project that might be a waste of time, or even counter productive?
Are their potential benefits to creating a legal or law-related blog? Absolutely [you are reading an example]. Could you create a communication plan that incorporated a Facebook page? Certainly.
But don’t waste your time clogging up the Internet with tweets and photos and gossip unless you have clear goals and you reasonably think a Web 2.0 project could help you reach those goals.
Don’t blog just because all the other lawyers are doing it.
Just to be clear: I am a firm proponent of law firm Websites
"Blogs" [Web logs] --should you have one?
A large and growing number of attorneys and law firms host a "blog" [short for Web log]. Like this one.
Blogs can resemble a journal or diary. They might be thought of as halfway between an email or forum post and a more permanent Website. Blogs have been described as "real-time media." Their immediacy is compelling.
Such informal immediacy also presents its share of problems worthy of pondering.
Though there are many types of legal blogs all share certain characteristics. Attorney or law firm blogs exist primarily for the purpose of practice building and rainmaking though they might overlap into other areas.
Some legal blogs might fall under the heading of "legal information." Such a blog might provide facts about causes of action or the workings of the legal system. They may offer links to resources such as bar organizations, or serve as an interface with Legal Aid or Access to Justice programs. Some offer live feeds or links to news media concerning the law. Some feature photos or other non-text content.
Other legal blogs might better be labeled "law and politics." Such blogs venture in the direction of the volatile nexus of law and public policy. Little about the practice of law is unaffected by political change and these attorney bloggers dare to offer commentary and critique.
Some legal blogs straddle the line between the law and some other subject. One example is this attorney who blogs about law, public policy, and the history and architecture of the city where he lives and grew up.
Some legal blogs are the effort of one person using simple and readily available Internet software. Like this one you are reading. Other legal blogs are part of special purpose national networks that offer a powerful and resource-rich opportunities for spreading a specific message. [i.e. this network for personal injury attorneys.]
All legal blogs present certain hazards you should be aware of before joining the ranks of legal bloggers.
1) Blogs are public. Blogging your critique of --for example-- a judge you feel is biased or less than competent, or chiming in about some controversial political topic, present the same hazards as putting that same opinion in a letter in the local newspaper. Do not allow yourself to be fooled into thinking of your blog as "private" unless you do not publish it on the Internet at all.
You may decide you don't mind offering such critique in public. And that is your decision to make. Just don't post on a blog under the mistaken impression that what you write is less than public.
2) Blogging about anything at all will almost certainly reflect upon your law practice. You can be and will be judged by clients, prospective clients, other bar members, senior partners, the legal profession and the public based on your blog. Even if your blog concerns NASCAR, modern architecture, cooking, your pets or your martial arts hobby.
3) Blogging is communicating information and you should view your blog through the filter of professional ethics. Are you answering questions or offering legal advice that might create [in reality or just subjectively] the appearance of an attorney-client relationship? Do your offered opinions cross the line regarding any applicable limitations on "attorney free speech" under your bar associations guidelines? Is it advertising? Are your publicly available comments going to create any conflict of interest with a client?
4) The Internet is forever. Anything you write in a blog [or publish anywhere on the Internet] can be accessed, viewed, linked, archived, copied and otherwise spread like virus. Once posted your blog content is almost impossible to eradicate as it echoes across the vast realms of the Internet.
As you consider topics for your blog think not only about current concerns but about the future. Do you ever contemplate running for office or seeking a judicial appointment? If so you might want to choose topics for your blog according to the old saw regarding attire: "Dress for the job you want." In this case you should blog with an eye towards the career you want to have.
Might you ever leave your insurance defense firm and join a plaintiff's practice? Maybe you are a 26-year old new associate who hasn't looked that far down the road. I suggest you stop and think about your future before posting comments that might work to limit your future career choices. Maybe you are a happy, secure mid-career junior partner who has never really given much thought to your firm breaking up and having to seek a new position. Look around you and talk to your peers; firms dissolve all the time, even well-established firms like yours. Don't unnecessarily burn any bridges, a priori.
Life is volatile and ever-changing. Do not plant a blog seed now that could grow into the reputation ruining equivalent of poison ivy later.
[NOTE: After this post was written the ABA Journal featured an article on legal blogs: "The Blawg 100 Best of the Blogosphere".] This is a wonderful resource for experiencing the many facets of legal blogging.
Blogs can resemble a journal or diary. They might be thought of as halfway between an email or forum post and a more permanent Website. Blogs have been described as "real-time media." Their immediacy is compelling.
Such informal immediacy also presents its share of problems worthy of pondering.
Though there are many types of legal blogs all share certain characteristics. Attorney or law firm blogs exist primarily for the purpose of practice building and rainmaking though they might overlap into other areas.
Some legal blogs might fall under the heading of "legal information." Such a blog might provide facts about causes of action or the workings of the legal system. They may offer links to resources such as bar organizations, or serve as an interface with Legal Aid or Access to Justice programs. Some offer live feeds or links to news media concerning the law. Some feature photos or other non-text content.
Other legal blogs might better be labeled "law and politics." Such blogs venture in the direction of the volatile nexus of law and public policy. Little about the practice of law is unaffected by political change and these attorney bloggers dare to offer commentary and critique.
Some legal blogs straddle the line between the law and some other subject. One example is this attorney who blogs about law, public policy, and the history and architecture of the city where he lives and grew up.
Some legal blogs are the effort of one person using simple and readily available Internet software. Like this one you are reading. Other legal blogs are part of special purpose national networks that offer a powerful and resource-rich opportunities for spreading a specific message. [i.e. this network for personal injury attorneys.]
All legal blogs present certain hazards you should be aware of before joining the ranks of legal bloggers.
1) Blogs are public. Blogging your critique of --for example-- a judge you feel is biased or less than competent, or chiming in about some controversial political topic, present the same hazards as putting that same opinion in a letter in the local newspaper. Do not allow yourself to be fooled into thinking of your blog as "private" unless you do not publish it on the Internet at all.
You may decide you don't mind offering such critique in public. And that is your decision to make. Just don't post on a blog under the mistaken impression that what you write is less than public.
2) Blogging about anything at all will almost certainly reflect upon your law practice. You can be and will be judged by clients, prospective clients, other bar members, senior partners, the legal profession and the public based on your blog. Even if your blog concerns NASCAR, modern architecture, cooking, your pets or your martial arts hobby.
3) Blogging is communicating information and you should view your blog through the filter of professional ethics. Are you answering questions or offering legal advice that might create [in reality or just subjectively] the appearance of an attorney-client relationship? Do your offered opinions cross the line regarding any applicable limitations on "attorney free speech" under your bar associations guidelines? Is it advertising? Are your publicly available comments going to create any conflict of interest with a client?
4) The Internet is forever. Anything you write in a blog [or publish anywhere on the Internet] can be accessed, viewed, linked, archived, copied and otherwise spread like virus. Once posted your blog content is almost impossible to eradicate as it echoes across the vast realms of the Internet.
As you consider topics for your blog think not only about current concerns but about the future. Do you ever contemplate running for office or seeking a judicial appointment? If so you might want to choose topics for your blog according to the old saw regarding attire: "Dress for the job you want." In this case you should blog with an eye towards the career you want to have.
Might you ever leave your insurance defense firm and join a plaintiff's practice? Maybe you are a 26-year old new associate who hasn't looked that far down the road. I suggest you stop and think about your future before posting comments that might work to limit your future career choices. Maybe you are a happy, secure mid-career junior partner who has never really given much thought to your firm breaking up and having to seek a new position. Look around you and talk to your peers; firms dissolve all the time, even well-established firms like yours. Don't unnecessarily burn any bridges, a priori.
Life is volatile and ever-changing. Do not plant a blog seed now that could grow into the reputation ruining equivalent of poison ivy later.
[NOTE: After this post was written the ABA Journal featured an article on legal blogs: "The Blawg 100 Best of the Blogosphere".] This is a wonderful resource for experiencing the many facets of legal blogging.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
