By Glenn Lockhart

I read newspapers everyday. And of course I read deaf blogs everyday. This is because there is where I live and then there is my community, and I like understanding what’s happening in both.

In recent weeks there have been intensified examinations of blogging. The Washington Post’s IT Blog said Nielsen/Net ratings found that blogging is boosting online readership at newspapers. This weekend’s conference at Gallaudet will discuss how blogs “were used heavily to share information, publicize fast-breaking news, and debate events and issues” during the university’s protest last spring then last fall. There’s also Vikki Washington’s recent post on bloggers and the First Amendment .

To be clear, not all bloggers pass off their posts as journalism, but some of them do. For those who presume to report news, how about that…bloggers as journalists, warriors of the Fourth Estate?

Interesting and fun, but not at all that absurd. Consider…

Question #1: How to define journalism?

Who cares?

News and features are the basic products of journalism, and their relevance can be determined by going against a basic checklist of news values (conflict, impact, prominence, timeliness, proximity, oddity). If one is met, it might be newsworthy. It’s simply up to the editor to rank it among the day’s pickings. Maybe it splashes on the front page, maybe it gets just three column inches, likely it gets trashed like Britney Spears did last weekend.

The biggie is that these news values are relative to its audience. Proximity for a national newspaper is different than proximity for a local newspaper. Dr. Davila has prominence in the Gallaudet and deaf communities, but maybe not in Topeka, Kansas. And so it goes with the rest of the news values.

Lest you feel encumbered, editorial judgment is fluid and you don’t have to live by these news values, but a rookie blogger trying to determine whether the subject is worth writing about could refer to them for a quick consult.

When news isn’t breaking, is it broke?

What if a blogger just talks about stuff that appeared in the news? This goes to the argument that blogs provide no breaking news, only rehashed commentary.

I’d point out that features and columns are a staple of newspapers. Also, this reminds me of the number one knock for Sports Illustrated, which has always covered sports events several days after the fact, but which has been regarded for long as a singularly important sports magazine. I remember once reading the SI editor saying, with pride, “We don’t report on sports, we provide analysis.”

You either agree or you don’t: Interpretation of the news is as important as its reportage.

Question #2: Who is a journalist?

Everyone has a microphone

I have to credit Julie Hochgesang, who quoted Ben Moore, who likely ripped it off someone else. Everybody has a microphone. Everyone except for witty, lovable Ben, it seems (we’re breathlessly awaiting your first blog).

That’s one gripe against journalists: You don’t need a license. You don’t need to go to J-School. You don’t need an apprenticeship. Matt Drudge came on overnight. Geraldo has his own talk show. E! has a celebrity news show. Blogs are so easy to set up and to maintain, easier than creating a newspaper, and bloggers nowadays sprout everywhere.

In Argentina, Cuba, Zimbabwe, and other countries that I’m vaguely certain about, you need a license to practice journalism. That might be quality control, or that just might be control. Be a journalist there; write something seditious and your government can take your livelihood away. This decade-old article that practically serves as an ode to Matt Drudge is still relevant.

Be glad anyone can have a microphone.

State your case

We have laws that concern journalists, and thus there exist legal definitions. Too bad they’re state-by-state.

In Arizona, in where I run for the shade nine months out of the year, our shield law (which allows sources and notes to be kept confidential) defines a journalist as anyone who is:

engaged in newspaper, radio, television or reportorial work, or connected with or employed by a newspaper, radio or television station, shall not be compelled to testify or disclose in a legal proceeding or trial or any proceeding whatever, or before any jury, inquisitorial body or commission, or before a committee of the legislature, or elsewhere, the source of information procured or obtained by him for publication in a newspaper or for broadcasting over a radio or television station with which he was associated or by which he is employed.

That’s a mouthful. And as is with every law, precedents shape legal definitions. I don’t know how you would interpret Arizona’s shield law but for me it appears to encompass blogging. Unfortunately, our interpretations have no merit; we have to follow dockets for any lawsuit that challenges this and see how that court finds.

Take California. In May 2006, a decision effectively says bloggers can act as journalists, and don’t have to reveal their sources. In October 2006, however, in another decision a court found a blogger to be unprotected by the state’s shield law and in contempt for not turning over evidence.

Until more cases go to court and ascend through the appellate levels, inconsistency is sure to reign. In the meanwhile, Google around a bit (keywords: “blogger shield law”), and read up. This is best enjoyed with coffee.

Another interesting read is a law review article entitled “Citizen Journalism and the Reporter’s Privilege”; actually, reading just the synopsis should suffice—she proposes that the Reporter’s Privilege should extend to anyone whenever appropriate, including “pajama-clad bloggers.”

First drafts, no second thoughts

There’s one more thing that is truly significant: The absence of editors and fact-checkers. Funny enough, this was pointed out by my cousin when he reviewed my draft (this is also going through the Shane wringer). Thanks dudes. But like I said earlier, fortunately or unfortunately, journalism isn’t an exclusive club. Like it or not, you don’t need an editor in order to be called a journalist, although you’ll never catch me posting without one.

News reporting rigor asks that journalists corroborate their news reporting with multiple sources. Editors ensure that, in articles where there is a single source, subject authority is appropriately gauged. This is where individual bloggers often come up short, but that doesn’t make them non-journalists, just shadows of journalists. Damn them by accusing them of just that: Poor journalism. If they’re serious about what they do, it’ll sting.

Some bloggers fancy themselves as maverick reporters, challenging conventions and redefining news. That’s neat-o but when a blog’s credibility teeters on anonymous sources or unprovable claims, we should remember that journalists trade on trust. Without it, they have very little to offer. Legendary CBS news anchor Walter Cronkite, whose name graces my school at Arizona State, was synonymous with trust. My professors preach it all the time in the classroom. They remind us that Cronkite’s influence was so great that when he spoke against our presence in Vietnam, President Lyndon Baines Johnson listened.

You bloggers out there, if you blog to effect change, although your aspirations might be more humble (to sway not the U.S. President but perhaps the regular Joes in our community), remember that reputation is a journalist’s currency. Trust Cronkite on that.

Question #3: Why are you a reader?

This is probably the only discussion that matters. Rather than define news or a news reporter, it might be that whether blogs are journalism depends on our use. I got hooked on deaf blogs during the Gallaudet protest last spring. Me and 4,741 others.

Why? Actually, never mind, we all know why.

Coverage at washingtonpost.com was unsatisfying. I was getting more information from family, friends, the university’s Office of Public Relations, co-workers, and just about everybody else. I craved it, no matter what angle it had. And I overloaded on deaf blogs, incredibly, to the point where I got sick of it.

One post at DeafDC.com stuck with me, though. Several comments lambasted the protesters for not getting enough media attention. Instant contradiction, I thought, on par with saying “I’m not talking.” The blog was overrun with posts on Gallaudet, and so I pointed this out to Shane, although not articulately (he has since shamed me to coherency by asking me to blog on this). I was telling him that DeafDC.com was not merely a blog, but a media outlet.

“The Washington Post keeps quoting us,” Shane triumphantly said, happy he was showing his employer dividends. He believed this site to be an instrument in the publicity of the Gallaudet protest “to the media.” I agreed, but proposed that blogs were going further and were actually scooping the protest; DeafDC.com and many other websites were, for several days, the equivalent of washingtonpost.com. Shane and other commenters were in love with the fact that DeafDC.com blogs were being sourced while I hoped people would start looking at deaf blogs as journalistic vehicles.

Yes, niche media. Citizen journalism. Whatever, a rose by any other name, but there was media attention with DeafDC.com alone and to insist otherwise was nonsensical. It got odder when these same people finally proclaimed media attention only when Washington Post’s Marc Fisher–a blogger, no less–wrote about the protest. Go figure.

Anyway, the Gallaudet protest isn’t the news it used to be, but I haven’t stopped reading deaf blogs. In fact, they remain a daily staple. Why? Why am I a reader? I think part of the answer goes to the heart of democracy.

The intent of American journalism is to ensure an informed citizenry, which is essential to the success of a democracy. Your vote counts, but you shouldn’t cram only when tomorrow is Election Day; you do this throughout the years, accumulating information that justifies your participation. So the news media reports on the government, then you learn about the issues, and how you’d like to vote. At least, this is the theory.

For me, though, what happens in the deaf community is of interest to me. Knowledge helps me to maintain my participation and contribution. I don’t want to walk around saying, for example, “Really, they’re removing captioning laws? Why didn’t someone tell me?”

Remember the values that determine newsworthiness? I repeat: they’re relative to the audience. The media at large seek out the agenda of their particular audience, and promote it. “99-97 isn’t enough coverage on the Washington Wizards’ game last night? Okay, you got it, we’re doing a full, tricked out page on every game,” that kind of thing in Washington, DC. What deaf bloggers do is promote the deaf community agenda. The Gallaudet protest is example enough; people were saying, “You need to know this, it’s news.”

What about the fourth day of the Deaflympics? It may appear on page F22 of the Salt Lake Tribune. For a deaf blogger, the event just might be the focus of his post. Deaf blogs discuss–although less frequently report on–stuff of interest to our community such as the Oregon School for the Deaf and the firing of its director; instructions on how to caption your vlogs; the tragic loss of a friend to the Colorado Springs deaf community; illuminating yesterday memoirs of a deaf volunteer at a school for the deaf in Sri Lanka; the Winter Deaflympics; and admittedly no shortage of material of questionable relevance.

Only, rather than inform us, I would say deaf bloggers occasionally go further and help to frame particular issues and thereby sensitize us to these issues. This is essential to an empowered community that doesn’t always know its priorities.

It’s a large part of why I read deaf blogs. I like knowing what’s happening in my community. I also like understanding what’s happening in my community and reading opinions that both confirm and challenge my stances. To all the journalists out there: may the good bloggers stick around for long and may the bad ones improve in a hurry.

Glenn Lockhart is Deaf, was born in DC but lives in Arizona, and he is a friendly guy. Really.