What, if any, is the difference between a journalist and a blogger?

A journalist (ideally) has a professional responsibility to verify information, check sources, print ‘facts’ (as best as they can be defined), portray the story from different viewpoints, and at least have a pretence of being ‘objective’ (although objectivity in news is not really a burden in Britain, where biases are obvious and held up for everyone to see). To this end, what journalists write has gone through some sort of peer or editorial review process.

Bloggers, by contrast, have no such professional responsibility or obligation. They can, within certain legal limits, print what they want without any obligation to verify sources or separate fact from opinion. The only obligation they have (if even that), is to maintain their audience. I also think that blogging revolves around a certain intimacy between the writer and audience in a way that is different from mass journalism. http://blogs.zdnet.com/igeneration/?p=738 so does the law protect the journalist because he has to verify information and the blogger doesn't? I, too, believe that we are going into the 21 century of blogging. a blogging website just got bought out BGR for a lot of money http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2010/04/26/were-taking-bgr-to-the-next-level-mmc-acquires-bgr/ How can Gizmodo think that protecting their resources applies here( journalist or blogger) wonder what's on those computers, I think they are toast

Okay, who here has Apple stock?

The crime potentially committed is theft, as plainly stated in the penal code quoted above. The evidence is the blogger's own posts and photos. The suspects are the blogger and the guy from whom he received the stolen item. Pretty straightforward probable cause for a warrant, I think.

Where do the sympathies lie? Who cares. Tech is Silicon Valley's economic engine. Crimes that threaten that engine are going to be taken seriously there. Remember that there are thousands of companies employing thousands of people working on thousands of secret products there, any of which could be "found" and sold - if not to bloggers then to competitors, domestic or foreign. Makes sense to me that law enforcement would want to at least investigate this.

I've made no secret that I have AAPL stock, and if you did you would have made a good profit, I don't like saying" wish I had bought that stock! man what was I thinking, I could have bought that for X dollars! damn Apple is on a roll, 12 cylinders pumping..... when that ends, if it does, it will look like Microsoft so I know what to look for, anything wrong with that? I think the word for this is "industrial espionage "only these guys are pretty goofy... if you think the "competitors" didn't look at Gizmodo's website to see the new iphone before launch, well then your wrong, probably had magnifying glasses out

Gizmodo's chief legal counsel sent a letter to local police, noting that Chen is a journalist and thus, under both California and Federal law, a warrant cannot be issued to search his home and seize property that could have been used for the purposes of a news story.

There are a number of court decisions in the past that provide Gizmodo and Chen with the precedent they need to show that online journalists are, in fact, covered under the same protections as traditional journalists.

If it was stolen then why did Apple not take the phone back when it was offered - for THREE weeks??

There are also numerous concerns re the "RAT" and its funding.

That feature doesn't work yet in iPhone OS version 4 beta.
From the serial numbers I saw on the back that wouldn't work - they were all "x" along with the FCC ID.

wow.

Did Apple ever report a stolen prototype?

spinning this as a theft is a bit ridiculous.

to you it is

Now that Apple has Publicly added the information of what the device is, it's easy to say that the Gizmo guys should have known. But, at the Time, it could have been so many other things. It could have been a Chinese prank. It could have been a custom phone for some rich guy. It could have been just a design study. ...

Apple is the one which outted what the phone actually is.

+1

Funny, I once had a prototype lost.. One of my clients wanted to do his own focus groups. He took it with, all the way to the airport where he left it on the train. :(

A long story short, a few months later some guy calls about how one of the features (found only on the new design) had broken. "Send it back for a replacement." was the response. ...not "thief! ...we will sue you!"

obviously he didn't get 5-10 large for it.....

Exactly. Gizmodo bought property from someone they KNEW was not the legal owner. That is a crime. Are they journalists? Of course. Is their action protected? Of course not.

It would not matter if the reporter worked for Time magazine or the Washington post, he bought something that he KNEW was not owned by the seller. How the seller got it does not matter, the buyer knew the seller did legally own it. It is and should be, a felony.

The similarities between your situation and the iphone are striking.

Point was, spinning this as a theft is a bit ridiculous. Apple could have handled this MUCH better/smarter.

Are you claim that this was a theft?

If you found what appeared to be an iPhone proto/oddity would you show it to any of your friends? Or, would you immediately assume that this was something that needed shielding from curious eyes? ....make sure that no other eyes saw the piece, while wading thru Apple Indians in an effort to get the word to the Apple chiefs as soon as possible?

I have a feeling that if the same thing happened to Microsoft, that the people clamoring 'theft ..felony..." would be silent.

I'd show it to friends then hand it over to the bar manager. EDIT: I'd even take some pictures of it. Which is not a crime.

No longer my problem and no cops kicking my door in. What the bar manager does is not my concern and not my problem.

Now if the bar manager was shady I might go find a cop and hand it over.

See how simple that is?

I'd laugh my ass off but it would not change the nature or my opinion of what happened.

The law in California is clear. You may not purchase property from someone you know is not the lawful owner. Pretty fükking simple.

The law also requires a "good faith" effort to return found property to the rightful owner. But that is an entirely separate issue.