Comments on WMATA still says blogs aren't news media - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by busgirl1

Fri, 11 May 2012 15:14:23 EDT

I do in fact get what I consider news from GGW. The Post never wrote about the little triangle park at Dupont Circle that NPS wanted to fence in; the Post never wrote about the plans for a bit of park near the education building in SW. There have been many stories I wouldn't have seen had GGW not linked to them. This clearly is not a legal position. I'm just a reader who does read GGW to get news.

Comment by busgirl1

Fri, 11 May 2012 15:13:21 EDT

Comment by Dave J

Fri, 11 May 2012 10:23:38 EDT

Ever hear of Fox or MSNBC? No one challenges their right to press credentials.

Probably because they have high powered and highly paid legal teams that would rip WMATA a new one in court and then force WMATA to pay them for the privilege. Most bloggers don't.

Comment by Michael A. Rogers

Fri, 11 May 2012 10:11:39 EDT

The notion of an unbiased media is a 20th century one that is a fraud. Anyone smart enough to be a TRADITIONAL journalist should be smart enough to have an opinion.

Bloggers are -- of course -- are a NEW JOURNALISM. It's not up to the GOVERNMENT to decide. Simply put, the bloggers here, go to meetings, gather information and write about it. That, rg, is what a free press is about. You don't like the skew? Go somewhere else. I don't consider that rag the Washington Times news, but I would defend their right to press access.

Ever hear of Fox or MSNBC? No one challenges their right to press credentials.

Comment by rg

Fri, 11 May 2012 09:46:58 EDT

This blog goes out of its way to claim it is nothing more than an advocacy blog when its "news" editorials are so ham handed and one sided. That isn't news and you can't have it both ways.

Very, little if anything that I've ever seen on GGW could remotely be considered "news".

I am one of metros biggest "haters" but they have you here.

Comment by Wayan

Fri, 11 May 2012 01:01:02 EDT

Its way more simple. WMATA doesn't want to giv GGW free service o it would then have to give free service to every crazy blogger out there. This is understandable organizational self defense .

Comment by h street landlord

Fri, 11 May 2012 00:45:23 EDT

This place aint perfect, but you are smokin that good good if you think the articles here, in general at least, aren't much more thorough and well researched than the transit coverage at WP, for example.

Comment by Michael A. Rogers

Thu, 10 May 2012 20:59:50 EDT

Are our government agencies so ineffective that they cannot look at applicants and decide if they are press. The White House, Senate and House all consider Bloggers media.

WMATA is just showing its ignorance.

Comment by HogWash

Thu, 10 May 2012 17:17:18 EDT

Point taken David. Maybe knuckleheads like me will eventually get the picture :)

Comment by David Alpert

Thu, 10 May 2012 15:28:09 EDT

To be clear, when I say this isn't the place to discuss the comment policy, I don't mean try to discuss the comment policy. Further comments about the comment policy will be deleted regardless of content.

Comment by selxic

Thu, 10 May 2012 15:25:09 EDT

I think it's that time of year again when we look at the comment policy again.

Comment by HogWash

Thu, 10 May 2012 14:28:04 EDT

This isn't the proper forum for discussing the comment policy. Please raise questions with the editors via email rather than in the comments.

It's reasonable to note that there is and likely will always be inconsistency with this approach.

Comment by greent

Thu, 10 May 2012 14:02:43 EDT

Hmmm... I do recall this idea came up before... reporter or editorial writer... news media or blog.....

Comment by fl

Thu, 10 May 2012 12:13:32 EDT

Where is the portion of FOIA or the caselaw interpreting it that says that blogs count as news media for the purposes of fee waivers or exemptions? I have actually done a little bit of research on this issue, albeit over 3 years ago, and I remember it being very much unclear and ambiguous. Unless something has changed to make it more clearcut, I don't think WMATA is "incorrect". At least not until a court tells them they are.

Comment by David Alpert

Thu, 10 May 2012 12:00:42 EDT

We have a clear comment policy. ceefer66's comments and others are only deleted when they violate those rules, which center around civility and personal attacks, not point of view.

Each time a comments is deleted, as with others, the commenter gets an email explaining why. That email also encourages the commenter to reply via email if they have a concern. ceefer66 should have gotten one of these each time, unless he or she is using a false email address (which violates the policy), and therefore should know why each comment was deleted and have an opportunity to discuss it further.

This isn't the proper forum for discussing the comment policy. Please raise questions with the editors via email rather than in the comments.

Comment by ceefer66

Thu, 10 May 2012 11:53:48 EDT

"GGW, unlike many other blogs, dosen't screen their commentators, no matter how much they go against their pro-transit view point."

I beg to differ.

My oft-deleted comments - along with those of many others - that present an opposing view are a case in point.

Comment by Ethan

Thu, 10 May 2012 11:45:54 EDT

As much as I love GGW, I have to agree with past comments that GGW is not a news source, but rather an opinion source. I would love for that to change and for GGW to expand to editorials and news (and perhaps start a printed edition handed out for free on the metro...)

But until then, the $261 might need to be paid. I would start soliciting donations. I'm sure people would donate.

Comment by Michael Perkins

Thu, 10 May 2012 11:24:14 EDT

The case that Metro is citing is taken out of context, and WMATA is cherry-picking a statement which appears to be applicable, but actually is not.

In the case at hand, Judicial Watch was requesting documents by FOIA, archiving the received documents, and then notifying the media via press releases and "blast faxes" that the documents were available. Judicial Watch made the documents available to interested reporters for inspection.

The court got the case right, Judicial Watch did not meet the standard, because they did not take the documents and use editorial skills to create a new work based on the information. They made it available to reporters to use in their works.

Unfortunately, WMATA has latched on to the appeals court's statement that "A representative of the news media must itself disseminate the information not merely make it available".

WMATA is also citing a case that predates an important change to FOIA. In 2007, Congress changed the law to include people that disseminate news through electronic means. WMATA has ignored that change in the law.

Comment by Dave J

Thu, 10 May 2012 10:17:37 EDT

WMATA is just trying to find a reason to get out of doing the work.

Just like on everything else. I do think there is less malice here and more plain laziness.

Comment by HogWash

Thu, 10 May 2012 10:15:11 EDT

unlike many other blogs, dosen't screen their commentators, no matter how much they go against their pro-transit view point.

Hunh? Since when?

Eventually, the industry will have to deal with the ever-changing media landscape. Newsrooms are emptying, newspapers are dying, journalistic standards are in the toilet, and a new wave of "citizen journalists." Obviously, GGW falls into the latter category..of sorts.

Objectivity (or the lack thereof) really doesn't determine what's news media. While there is a healthy exchange of ideas here, the invested community is so small that the advocacy ends up with very short coattails. That still doesn't determine "news media" though.

Personally, I wouldn't consider GGW part of the news media. But I wouldn't jump off a bridge if WMATA decided it is.

BTW, while the linked author does suggest that blogs should be considered news media. He isn't absolute in that assessment when he says,

However, bloggers and websites, must still show that the information they seek under a FOIA requests fits the definition of news. And some of the language may mean that the bloggers and websites have to be part of an established news site, such as the blogs for Time or Newsweek. Thus, the controversy will now move from are bloggers part of the news media to can independent non-traditional bloggers and websites be considered part of the newsmedia?

Comment by Thayer-D

Thu, 10 May 2012 09:19:40 EDT

Lance,
I thought you where blurring the line between what is original reporting and what is editorializing by saying
"ALL news reporting organizations have a slant and that's to be expected because we, as readers and voters, all have a slanted view of things too." GGW does report the news, it just might be one more step removed from the original reporting.

It's like saying everybody's selfish, therefore trust no one. But some slants are more pronounced than others and some are driven more by monitary incentives than altruistic, thus WE decide what's more trustworthy, unless one wants to hide behind the umbrella of false equivalency to throw their mud.

At the Post, a reporter goes out and interviews a bunch of people about what happened, even though they weren't there themselves, are they reporting editorialized views?

Actually, it reminds me of the whole "what's original" architecture debate that modernists love to have. If it looks like a clear historical style, they might say it's not original and therefore bad, since apparently resolving all the programatic challanges from the client and site don't seem to count as much as it's exterior look. Never mind that modernism is a historical style, although not very recognizable, since one of its tenants was to not be a style, but above style.

It seems un-necessary to quible about what's original reporting as much as what's original archietcture, since in the end we'll all make up our minds whether we like it or not. The criteria for what makes a blog part of the media is just another way to keep information that should be public, private. Anyone who reports news at what ever level should be considered part of the media, unless you have something to hide.

Comment by Anon

Thu, 10 May 2012 09:04:07 EDT

Mike O (and others) are correct in that the cost of the information should be standardized.

But GGW claiming to be a news organization sounds like a blog having delusions of grandeur.

Comment by Anon

Thu, 10 May 2012 08:51:02 EDT

[This comment has been deleted for violating the comment policy.]

Comment by Mike O

Thu, 10 May 2012 08:49:49 EDT

When I think of the debate about whether or not blogs are "media" and whether or not that should give them the same rights and privileges I think of Jon Stewart and his fusion of comedy, satire and news reporting. GGW, like the "Daily Show", was created at least in part to respond to a lack of depth, seriousness and attention in their respective fields of coverage (Stewart in the television news media and Alpert in transit and smart growth related issues in the DC area). Under Stewart, the "Daily Show" went from a throwaway late-night cable time filler to a cottage industry of its own and the most important news outlet for young people who've grown up inherently distrusting the news. GGW, like many of the hyperlocal microblogs around, has also evolved, grown and morphed from a personal journal into a full-time outlet and business of its own. David throws himself into the occasional newspaper op-ed as well.

Stewart, when asked about his ambitions, duplicitously toes the line between being a comedian and being a political pundit by stating he's not "just" a comedian but one informed by his viewpoint. However, he still vehemently denies any partisanship on his own end and accuses those who would question that as being too ensconced in their own partisanship to see what he does clearly. He can be a comedian who (rightfully) claims to be more serious about the news than many news anchors but without having the same scrutiny laid on him because he is a comedian. This allows him to pick and choose what he wants to report on and have his cake and eat it too and he's done so masterfully. Likewise, GGW has lots of different contributors and obviously has ambitions towards seeing itself as full mainstream media but at this time still doesn't produce original reporting. Original research at times, yes. But there are no "beat" reporters who regularly update readers on specific agendas and it's completely self-selecting in what stories it chooses to cover and when it chooses to cover them. There is no responsibility to any larger entity other than its own immediate readership. It is not yet part of the official public record. Media is evolving and perhaps some standardization of blogs as legitimate news media is in the future but in the meantime simply claiming ownership of a media credential doesn't make it so.

All that said, in this particular case I agree with Theo that the cost of information should be standardized across the board, media or public. The fights over what is "media" are only going to grow and get more convoluted and contentious.

Comment by Lance

Thu, 10 May 2012 08:35:32 EDT

@Thayer-D, I would go further to add that GGW has arrived at their "slant .. "

The point is that GGW does NOT have a slant. They are advocacy group ... plain and simple. They don't 'slant' the news because they don't report the news. They instead 'report' their opinions on the news ... Just like you and I do on this blog. None of us are reporting news. We're all simply editorializing as Anon above aptly pointed out.

Comment by freewheel

Thu, 10 May 2012 08:29:45 EDT

Contact the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. They are experts on FOIA and may be able to get you pro bono counsel.

Comment by Thayer-D

Thu, 10 May 2012 07:40:50 EDT

It seems that information from a government funded institution like WMATA should be publicly available. Anything less is B.S. I'm sick of the government playing peek-a-boo with their information.

As for bias in the media, the Fox News/Lance argument of "all new's organizations have a slant" and therefore it's impossible to qualify thier honesty is like saying anytime I see some skin in a movie, it's porn. Obviously we all have a slant, but GGW, unlike many other blogs, dosen't screen their commentators, no matter how much they go against their pro-transit view point. That's why they are the number one blog in the region on these issues and why I'll always respect David Alpert's work and all who contrubute here.

I would go further to add that GGW has arrived at their "slant" based on an honest analysis of the facts on the ground. If driving in cars reduced social isolation, reduced asthma, killed fewer people, preserved our farm land for the next generation, and so on, I would expect them to have a pro-car bias, becasue that would be a pro-human bias.

Comment by Theo16

Thu, 10 May 2012 07:21:28 EDT

This is a silly, arbitrary policy (or law, I guess). All organizations or people should have to pay or not pay regardless of how they want to use the data. Certainly the Times and Post could afford to pay $261 if they wanted it, and they should have no special rights.
Status as a journalist or member of the news media can not be regulated by any government agency -- that would seem to be a violation of freedom of the press.

Comment by Anon

Wed, 09 May 2012 23:40:24 EDT

WashPost, WashTimes, Fox, etc. all have one thing in common that GGW does not have. They create *content* using standard journalist practices. They interview primary and secondary sources. They fact check. They make requests for comment. They make retractions.

Editorializing is the only thing original GGW does. It does not make them a news organization.

Comment by Lance

Wed, 09 May 2012 23:29:01 EDT

@Mr. T, Lance, you didn't answer the question of why then (if your assertions are 100% true, which I doubt) are institutions like the Washington Times and Examiner, where both the editorial content and "straight" reporting are slanted in a particular direction exempt from your theory?

I think I did. I said News organizations go to great lengths to publish opposing views EVEN NOT IN STANDARD PROPORATIONS TO THEIR STANDARD VIEWS. (i.e., even if its a poor attempt at 'giving the other side's view' of a story.

And note, if you're singling out the Times, for having an agenda, I have to wonder if you think the Post doesn't? The Post is seriously slanted toward the left ... probably more than the Times is slanted toward the right. ALL news reporting organizations have a slant and that's to be expected because we, as readers and voters, all have a slanted view of things too. I'm always amazed at hearing people single out news media they don't agree with as having 'slanted' views when the very news media they listen to/read/ watch by definition also have slanted views. As for me, to try to get a better unbiased view, I like to sometimes watch the same story being reported from two different sources. And when doing so I can't help thinking 'the truth lies somewhere between the two positions".

Comment by Bossi

Wed, 09 May 2012 22:54:26 EDT

(Whoops- it seems I posted to the wrong article)

Have you guys thought about getting a press pass? They're pretty straightforward and you would all undoubtedly qualify. There's strong precedent for other DC bloggers likewise having press credentials: http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1245,q,548957.asp

Comment by Michael Perkins

Wed, 09 May 2012 22:38:57 EDT

Metro shouldn't treat our requests for information as members of the media because the reporting is unbiased, high quality, or even compelling. They should treat us like media because that's the way the law is written and the courts have interpreted it.

Comment by Mr T in DC

Wed, 09 May 2012 22:27:53 EDT

Lance, you didn't answer the question of why then (if your assertions are 100% true, which I doubt) are institutions like the Washington Times and Examiner, where both the editorial content and "straight" reporting are slanted in a particular direction exempt from your theory? Quite frankly, the writing here is more scholarly and fact-based than either of those rags - and WMATA should treat GGW accordingly.

Comment by Lance

Wed, 09 May 2012 18:44:31 EDT

@Anon, bingo! It's one thing to be on different sides of the aisle which can in turn influence which sides of an issue you report, quite another to chose which side of the aisle to support at a given point in time based on which of your issues they are willing to work to further. It's a vast difference in perspective. Besides I know of at least one person who was encouraged to write an article about an issue (Union Station) whose article didn't get published once it was discovered that his point of view didn't fit the party line. News organizations go to great lengths to publish opposing views even if not in equal proportions to there standard views. It gives them credibility and allows them to call themselves 'news reporting'.

Comment by Anon

Wed, 09 May 2012 17:53:23 EDT

Considering every article on here is an editorial, that does not make GGW a news organization.

Comment by Michael Perkins

Wed, 09 May 2012 17:51:36 EDT

Members of the media must gather information, turn that information into a new work, and disseminate the new work to an audience.

Doesn't say anything about being positive toward the organization, or not opinion or anything.

Comment by Michael Perkins

Wed, 09 May 2012 17:46:55 EDT

Members of the media pay for record duplication costs, so it's not surprising @kytja had to pay something for her requests.

If you're not a member of the media, in addition you have to pay for someone to search for and review the records to see if anything needs to be excluded.

Comment by Richard Layman

Wed, 09 May 2012 17:35:35 EDT

FWIW, you should query the top 10 transit systems in the U.S. and see what their policy is. Ironically, I know that last year, or at least in the past few months, _Mass Transit_ Magazine ran a story about how amazing WMATA is because they do social media. You can always send a letter to the editor...

Comment by Arlington Civilzation

Wed, 09 May 2012 17:35:22 EDT

God, that must sting. :)

Comment by FOIARequestsAreOftenAbused

Wed, 09 May 2012 17:17:34 EDT

"Do I even need to mention the stupidity of blocking this information from an organization that has been and continues to be very pro-Metro and especially pro-transit? But hey, a transit agency with it's head in the sand (read: up it's ***)? What else is new?"

I am not a lawyer, but my guess is that if they had a different policy for pro transit blogs than for anti transit blogs (or even for LOLcats blogs) they would get in a lot more trouble than for treating all blogs the same.

Comment by FOIARequestsAreOftenAbused

Wed, 09 May 2012 17:12:52 EDT

slate has paid reporters.

Anyone can start a blog. heck I have a blog i made two posts to, before losing interest. Unless there are some criteria for which blogs count as media and which don't, insisting all blogs count simply eliminates the distinction between media and everyone else.

Comment by MrTinDC

Wed, 09 May 2012 17:09:18 EDT

It's arbitrary to exclude blogs as media in general, and even then it's arbitrary to exclude GGW while they may have responded differently to DCist or the Huffington Post. What about Slate and Salon? They're blog-like but also online magazine/newspaper-like. C'mon, you know they're just singling out GGW because they think of them as pains in the ass. ;)

Comment by dcd

Wed, 09 May 2012 17:01:21 EDT

This is clearly an arbitrary policy on WMATA's part, and will hopefully be changed soon.

Wrong? Yes, probably. Arbitrary? No, they don't just single out GGW, apparently, they take the blanket (and not unsupported) position that no blogs are news media.

Comment by MrTinDC

Wed, 09 May 2012 16:55:13 EDT

@Lance and @Gary,
As others have pointed out, news organizations that operate from different sides of the aisle are considered to be news media, such as the Washington Times, the Huffington Post, the Examiner - why not Greater Greater Washington? This is clearly an arbitrary policy on WMATA's part, and will hopefully be changed soon.

Comment by Canaan

Wed, 09 May 2012 16:52:26 EDT

The solution is to print out the previous day's stories and hand them out to people getting on the metro along with the guys who hand out the examiner and the express. Boom, printed periodical.

Comment by Simon

Wed, 09 May 2012 16:50:09 EDT

Victor Glasberg, 703-684-1100, is a great First Amendment lawyer...

Comment by MLD

Wed, 09 May 2012 16:46:32 EDT

@Lance
Yep, whenever I've raised the issue of objectivity in GGW's reporting, the response has been that its an advocacy group. You can't have it both ways.

Actually, there's nothing that says you have to use the information "objectively" even if you are "news." See the Washington Times' "investigation" on Metro as an example. And they didn't explain that the reason is that a "blog" isn't objective, they said that since GGW isn't a television, radio, or periodical outlet they don't count, and there was another court case involving an online-only presence that didn't count so you don't either.

WMATA is just trying to find a reason to get out of doing the work. They've found their boilerplate reasoning and haven't found anybody willing to challenge them on it.

Do I even need to mention the stupidity of blocking this information from an organization that has been and continues to be very pro-Metro and especially pro-transit? But hey, a transit agency with it's head in the sand (read: up it's ***)? What else is new?

Comment by Adam

Wed, 09 May 2012 16:36:19 EDT

@Gary

Take the time to actually read WMATA's response. That's not the reason they gave at all. They are very clearly stating that blogs can never be journalism, objective or not.

Comment by Jasper

Wed, 09 May 2012 16:33:12 EDT

@ Lance:Yep, whenever I've raised the issue of objectivity in GGW's reporting, the response has been that its an advocacy group. You can't have it both ways.

Yes you can. The law (as cited) does not say anywhere that media must be objective. Is FOXNEWS objective? Is MSNBC? Time Magazine? The Examiner? The WaPo? The Washington City Paper?

Also: who gets to determine what objective? Objectivity is rather subjective in nature.

Comment by Kytja Weir

Wed, 09 May 2012 16:24:39 EDT

Just a small note: Metro considers The Washington Examiner as news media but we have had to pay for at least one PARP request from WMATA in my time on the beat. Initially they quoted us a rate of more than $277. They refunded all but about $40 after processing the request.

Comment by Lance

Wed, 09 May 2012 16:23:51 EDT

@Gary. Yep, whenever I've raised the issue of objectivity in GGW's reporting, the response has been that its an advocacy group. You can't have it both ways.

Comment by Gary Fisher

Wed, 09 May 2012 16:18:02 EDT

Bill:

GGW disseminates opinion, not news, which is why WMATA keeps denying them.

GGW has morphed into an advocacy op-ed blog, not a news blog. I believe WMATA is right on this one.

Comment by Bill

Wed, 09 May 2012 16:15:20 EDT

GGW also has a twitter feed, which disseminates information. Write back and make it clear that the data is for a news article that will be disseminated to the public via the web, to subscribers of the twitter feed, and any other methods. You may also want to cite examples of your work has appeared on other news outlets or people referred to GGW posts.

Comment by Kevin Beekman

Wed, 09 May 2012 16:09:24 EDT

Hmmm. I can't think of any media that has given as much coverage or gone into as much detail on the Potomac Yard in-fill Metro station as Nick Partee's articles here on GGW and the Arlandrian.