Branston on Matthews

I've been known to disagree with John Branston, my friend and co-worker at The Memphis Flyer. Ask anybody on staff, it's gotten pretty heated from time to time. But I respect the guy a helluva lot, and our views about being a columnist are completely in synch: It ain't about being right all the time, it's about advancing the dialectic--- using the best facts available to create bold, thought-stirring content. So I doubt big John will mind very much that I think his recent column about the distinctions between blogging and journalism in regard to ThaMatt (TM Mediaverse) and so-called "shield laws" is wrong on at least one significant count. Because otherwise, it is absolutely right and somebody needed to write a counterpoint to the Commercial Appeal's broad but simpleminded take on the same subject, and roll skeptical eyes at the blogosphere's love of its own reflection (see Wintermute's comment here-- a comically oversimplified definition of a journalist's job which entails far more than simply the discovery and relation of facts. That's what trial lawyers do to win cases. Journalists also gather facts about facts in order to place the relevant bits into a meaningful context since facts minus context can be meaningless at best, misleading, and dangerous at worst --- anybody remember the parable of the blind men and the elephant?).

Comparing what Thaddeus Matthews does on his blog (and, indeed what most bloggers do-- even the brilliant ones assembled here) to established professional journalists is like comparing Dolly Parton to a male Dolly Parton impersonator singing "Jolene" at the karaoke bar. They may resemble a bit. They may sound alike. The impersonator may actually be a professional-level entertainer, and s/he might even be more Dolly than Dolly. But in some very basic ways s/he ain't the real dealio.

Are all professional journalists professional? Nope, many are quite lazy. Even good ones, sometimes. Even me (and what I do here at my personal blog-- even the best of it-- isn't what I do for The Flyer). And there are plenty of instances where bad things get past all editors, and copy editors, and the entire system in place to insure professionalism fails. But, as JB points out, there is a system. And therein lies the beginning of the big, big difference.

It's important to understand--- (and many pro journos don't)--- that every leak is not a scoop, and most require serious vetting. People leak things for many reasons and quite often those reasons are personal and NOT because it’s the right thing to do. Leaks, being selective, may conceal as much or more than they reveal. When a pro journalist gets a leak, he's got a process to face and lot of questions to answer before taking that leak to print.

Do not misunderstand. I suspect there are probably lots of internal problems at the MPD. And there is a lot of discontent under Godwin, some of which may turn out to be totally ligit. I do not rule out that ThaMatt has dropped a bombshell that could eventually reveal corruption and cronyism in the department. Nor do I rule out, as Branston suggests, that he's contaminated an investigation that was being handled professionally by trained, qualified law enforcement officials.

But even if Matthews has performed an act of journalism I'm not ready to concede that he's a journalist, or that bloggers (generally) committing acts of journalism are any more entitled to a journalist's legal protections than our talented Dolly impersonator is entitled to a cut of Parton's royalties.

Basic first amendment rights belong to everybody. But the special rules that flow from the Big ONE, that were established specifically to insure a free press are another matter entirely.

Initially-- and certainly at the time that Branston wrote his column-- strong arguments could be made that Matthews should be protected. But at least one of Matthews more salacious promises of proof has gone unfulfilled, while his tone has turned from that of a grammatically challenged journalist to that of an extortionist. And at this point, with no more relevant details the precedent that would be established by applying the shield law is worrisome.

As a culture we've chosen to protect and honor our law enforcement officials while frowning on vigilantes. Still, we've created circumstantial provisions for ordinary citizens who use force to protect themselves and others. And, perhaps, that's the model we should be looking at, even if it's more fun to imagine Thaddeus Matthews doing "9 to 5" in drag. (and Branston as the real Dolly?)

Big John only goes wrong by overestimating the meaning of his own paycheck. In virtually every professional field, from hardcore science to hardcore porn we've seen valuable, culture-rocking contributions from unpaid amateurs. But compared to John's commentary, the CA's lack of appropriate skepticism seems toothless and unprofessional.

UPDATE: Accidentlally published under the original title which was created when this post was about MANY more things. And a few other corrections have been made, and links fixed.