Ultimately, however, I think this case really comes down to the definition of "journalist." Ask yourself: If O'Grady's original story had appeared under his byline in The New York Times, would Apple have ever brought suit? Of course not. Note that Apple didn't even have the guts to take on Ziff-Davis, but rather went after O'Grady's poor little ISP. What the Apple lawyers have bet on, it seems, is that they can pivot the case upon the question of whether a blogger is a real journalist or not and then convince the judge he's not.Remember when Apple marketed itself as the anti-big brother, the machines for everyone else, and the tools that empowered the average person to do great things? Yea, that was so 1984 . . .
These days, the MSM is hurriedly trying to pull up the drawbridge to protect the "professionals" inside from the nonjournalists beyond the walls. But the public isn't fooled. For all the sniffing by the MSM about bloggers in pajamas and amateur journalism, most readers have figured out they can trust the reporting of a lone blogger like Iraq the Model as much if not more than the entire news apparatus of Reuters. The cynical lawyers at Apple are trying to capitalize on that dispute and use the ignorant courts as its weapon in the process.
Bottom line: Journalism does not belong exclusively to those who list "journalist" as the occupation on their tax returns.