Aaron Adams’s Blowhard Blog

John Dvorkak continues to be a complete idiot. In his latest column, he goes on a tirade about Apple’s recent win against Think Secret, Apple Insider and PowerPage. Not only is Apple beating up on its fans, he says, but it’s part of a larger conspiracy by the liberal media. He’s entitled to his opinion, but as is so often the case when most any professional journalist writes about the Mac or Apple, he has the facts all wrong. I seriously doubt he even bothered to read the ruling about which he is writing.

From Dvorak’s article:

The sites owners argued they were protected by the first amendment and California’s “shield law,” which protects journalists from having to reveal unnamed sources.

This is blatantly, factually incorrect. The shield law does no such thing. From the ruling:

E. The Shield Law

Easily overstated in its power, “[t]he description ‘shield law’ conjures up visions of broad protection and sweeping privilege. The California shield law, however, is unique in that it affords only limited protection. It does not create a privilege for newspeople, rather it provides an immunity from being adjudged in contempt. This rather basic distinction has been misstated and apparently misunderstood by members of the news media and our courts as well.” KSDO v. Superior Court, (1982) 136 Cal. App. 3de 375, 379-80.

California Evidence Code §§ 1070(a) and (b), cited by movants, are quite specific in their terms:

(a) A publisher, editor, reporter, or other person connected with or employed upon a newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, or by a press association or wire service, or any person who has been so connected or employed, cannot be adjudged in contempt by a judicial, legislative, administrative body, or any other body having the power to issue subpoenas, for refusing to disclose, in any proceeding as defined in Section 901, the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for publication in a newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.

(b) Nor can a radio or television news reporter or other person connected with or employed by a radio or television station, or any person who has been so connected or employed, be so adjudged in contempt for refusing to disclose the source of any information procured while so connected or employed for news or news commentary purposes on radio or television, or for refusing to disclose any unpublished information obtained or prepared in gathering, receiving or processing of information for communication to the public.

Based on that language and the facts presented, it is far from clear that Mr. O’Grady qualifies for relief from the subpoena on the grounds advanced. Whether he fits the definition of a journalist, reporter, blogger, or anything else need not be decided at this juncture for this fundamental reason: there is no license conferred on anyone to violate valid criminal laws.

Did Dvorak even read that? Obviously not.

From Dvorak:

Apparently bloggers are not protected despite the fact that blogs, and indeed any online content, are publications no different (except for the means of transmission) than newsletters or even newspapers.

Again, per the law and the ruling, no journalist is protected. It is the duty of all three site proprietors to understand this law and obey it when publishing.

From Dvorak:

The judge said that the Apple news and gossip sites were not “legitimate members of the press.”

The judge said no such thing. The ruling states that it doesn’t matter whether the defendants are members of the press or not.

From Dvorak:

This legal issue will develop over the next few years, but it does not bode well for a free press if you can declare one sort of information outlet legitimate, and another illegitimate.

Again, the judge made no such determination because it simply wasn’t relevant.

From Dvorak:

Whatever the case, this court ruling represents a very slippery slope since it suggests that some members of the press would have to pass a government standard to be afforded the protection of shield laws designed to promote open and free discussion of ideas.

I’m tired of repeating myself: The ruling says no such thing. There is no standard of journalism established in this case because any defendant’s status as a journalist is irrelevant. Additionally, the “shield law” does not protect journalists from having to reveal sources. I am absolutely certain that Dvorak didn’t read a single word of the decision, and if perchance I’m wrong and he did, then he didn’t comprehend any of it. His latest column is based completely on a premise that doesn’t even exist. He’s sloppy, he’s incompetent, and he’s just plain dumb.

John Dvorak is considered to be a professional journalist by the general public. He consistently prints factual inaccuracies and pure baseless supposition derived from those same factual inaccuracies.

The proprietors of Think Secret, Apple Insider, and PowerPage may or may not be journalists. They print speculation and rumor, sometimes baseless, sometimes based on facts that are acquired by what appears to be illegal means.

Who are the legitimate journalists? Those who don’t bother to understand facts and publish pointless tirades based on false premises? Or those who publish half speculation based on rumor, and half fact based on ill-gotten information? Or neither? Or both?