Salon | Letters to the editor

_______________IN DEFENSE OF MATT DRUDGE BY DAVID HOROWITZ (11/17/97)

As a practicing mainstream journalist -- my background is in small- and medium-sized dailies, with nary a "socialist rag" in sight -- I take considerable offense at David Horowitz's suggestion that I and my colleagues should take up the cause of Internet gossipist Matt Drudge on the grounds that we should defend anyone whose free-speech rights are being assaulted.
I hold little truck for the sycophantic Sidney Blumenthals of the world, but all journalists are expected to uphold certain basic, grounded standards of our profession -- accuracy, thoroughness, factuality. Matt Drudge meets none of those. I and everyone else who works as a journalist is exposed to the risk of being sued for libel if we improperly slander someone. No one in the profession considers that an onerous standard -- no one except, perhaps, for Matt Drudge.
Not only will I not defend him, but I actively hope that Drudge has the book thrown at him. We clearly need to be reminded of the fact that the arrival of the Internet as a medium does not mean the laws against libel and other kinds of false information (which have always been among the limits to the First Amendment) have been suspended. The Matt Drudges of the world only make it that much harder for those of us who take facts seriously to do our work and, more importantly, to restore some semblance of our profession's credibility.
-- David Neiwert
Seattle

David Horowitz glosses over many things in his defense of Matt Drudge, such as his reasons for personal animosity toward Sidney Blumenthal. Most egregious, however, is his misrepresentation of the excellent reasons for including America Online in the suit.
AOL is not included in the suit solely for its "deep pockets," as Horowitz alleges. AOL claims a copyright interest in material posted on its network, as part of its terms of service. As this applies to material casually posted by its subscribers, one must assume that AOL also claims a copyright in material it has negotiated to distribute. If AOL seeks to profit by claiming a copyright interest in the works it distributes, it must accept the attendant liability as part of the price of that profit. However, persons who value retaining control and integrity of the material they post have reason to hope that Blumenthal's suit will cause AOL to reconsider its unilateral claims of a property right in their work.
A bill currently before the House of Representatives, HR 2180, seeks to insulate online service providers from liability in copyright suits if they did not themselves post the infringing material, without affecting their ability to claim an interest in the works they disseminate. Those who wish to retain -- or, more properly, regain -- full control of their posted work, and who believe that entities claiming a property interest should accept the attendant responsibilities, should contact their congressional representatives and urge them to vote against the bill.
--Daniel Abraham
National Vice-President for Public Affairs
Graphic Artists Guild
I like the Drudge report, read it all the time. But I'm not too worried about defending him from spreading unfounded rumors about someone beating his wife. If he knew the rumor was false, he should pay. If he didn't know about whether it was true or not, but published it anyway, let the courts decide whether he should pay. But do us a favor and don't confuse him with a responsible journalist, and don't whine about people calling him a bottom feeder. Regardless of whether you believe that all this garbage about people's personal pasts is important, it's not so urgent that no fact checking should be done.
"The aim is clear," writes Horowitz, "not merely to nail Drudge, but to warn other critics of the Clinton establishment, including those online, to beware." How about this instead. "Drudge published a false rumor about Blumenthal, the nature of which leads one to believe that it could only be meant to personally embarrass and humiliate him. He should bear any legal consequences that result."
-- Smithback
SALON | Nov. 20, 1997

R E C E N T L Y+| MELROSE VS. THE MONSTERS BY SCOTT ROSENBERG

If you'd like to submit a letter to the editor for publication,
please e-mail us at salon@salonmagazine.com.
Letters may be edited for clarity and conciseness.
If you do not wish the letter to be published, please say so.

_______________IN DEFENSE OF MATT DRUDGE BY DAVID HOROWITZ (11/17/97)
	As a practicing mainstream journalist -- my background is in small- and medium-sized dailies, with nary a "socialist rag" in sight -- I take considerable offense at David Horowitz's suggestion that I and my colleagues should take up the cause of Internet gossipist Matt Drudge on the grounds that we should defend anyone whose free-speech rights are being assaulted. I hold little truck for the sycophantic Sidney Blumenthals of the world, but all journalists are expected to uphold certain basic, grounded standards of our profession -- accuracy, thoroughness, factuality. Matt Drudge meets none of those. I and everyone else who works as a journalist is exposed to the risk of being sued for libel if we improperly slander someone. No one in the profession considers that an onerous standard -- no one except, perhaps, for Matt Drudge. Not only will I not defend him, but I actively hope that Drudge has the book thrown at him. We clearly need to be reminded of the fact that the arrival of the Internet as a medium does not mean the laws against libel and other kinds of false information (which have always been among the limits to the First Amendment) have been suspended. The Matt Drudges of the world only make it that much harder for those of us who take facts seriously to do our work and, more importantly, to restore some semblance of our profession's credibility. -- David Neiwert Seattle David Horowitz glosses over many things in his defense of Matt Drudge, such as his reasons for personal animosity toward Sidney Blumenthal. Most egregious, however, is his misrepresentation of the excellent reasons for including America Online in the suit. AOL is not included in the suit solely for its "deep pockets," as Horowitz alleges. AOL claims a copyright interest in material posted on its network, as part of its terms of service. As this applies to material casually posted by its subscribers, one must assume that AOL also claims a copyright in material it has negotiated to distribute. If AOL seeks to profit by claiming a copyright interest in the works it distributes, it must accept the attendant liability as part of the price of that profit. However, persons who value retaining control and integrity of the material they post have reason to hope that Blumenthal's suit will cause AOL to reconsider its unilateral claims of a property right in their work. A bill currently before the House of Representatives, HR 2180, seeks to insulate online service providers from liability in copyright suits if they did not themselves post the infringing material, without affecting their ability to claim an interest in the works they disseminate. Those who wish to retain -- or, more properly, regain -- full control of their posted work, and who believe that entities claiming a property interest should accept the attendant responsibilities, should contact their congressional representatives and urge them to vote against the bill. --Daniel Abraham National Vice-President for Public Affairs Graphic Artists Guild I like the Drudge report, read it all the time. But I'm not too worried about defending him from spreading unfounded rumors about someone beating his wife. If he knew the rumor was false, he should pay. If he didn't know about whether it was true or not, but published it anyway, let the courts decide whether he should pay. But do us a favor and don't confuse him with a responsible journalist, and don't whine about people calling him a bottom feeder. Regardless of whether you believe that all this garbage about people's personal pasts is important, it's not so urgent that no fact checking should be done. "The aim is clear," writes Horowitz, "not merely to nail Drudge, but to warn other critics of the Clinton establishment, including those online, to beware." How about this instead. "Drudge published a false rumor about Blumenthal, the nature of which leads one to believe that it could only be meant to personally embarrass and humiliate him. He should bear any legal consequences that result." -- Smithback SALON \| Nov. 20, 1997