03/02/2020 Slater v Blomfield [2014] NZHC 2221; [2014] 3 NZLR 835 (12 September 2014) [46] This is relevant commentary, although it is not relevant as to Parliamentary intention as it post-dated the Evidence Act and considered different issues. The comment on the meaning of “news media” of the Law Commission in its final report on New Media of March 2013 is also of interest. In The News Media Meets ‘New Media’: Rights, Responsibilities and Regulation in the Digital Age it was stated:30 The [Evidence] Act defines both “journalist” and “news media” in such a way as to leave it open exactly who is included in those terms. Does it for example include a blogger? Overseas courts have given different answers to that question: the New Jersey Supreme Court has refused to allow a blogger to use the New Jersey Press Shield law, whereas an Irish Court has taken the opposite view. [47] There is nothing in the Law Commission’s pre-Evidence Act comments to indicate a legislative intention to exclude persons who are bloggers from the definition (or to include them in the definition), but that means little, given that blog sites are a recent development. There are now decisions of senior US courts where it is accepted that bloggers can have a news dissemination function like the traditional media.31 Indeed, Mr Karam did not go so far as to suggest that no blog could be a news medium. Instead, Mr Karam submitted that the Whale Oil website at the relevant time was not a news medium because the blog did not publish information that was in the public interest. 29 At [3.31]. 30 The News Media Meets ‘New Media’: Rights, Responsibilities and Regulation in the Digital Age (NZLC R128, 2013) at [2.13] 31. Obsidian Finance Group LLC v Cox 12-35238 and 35319, 17 January 2014 (9th Cir 2014); The Mortgage Specialists Inc v Implode-Explode Heavy Industries Inc 160 NH 227 (NH 2010); compare with TooMuchMedia v Hale 206 NJ 209 (NJ 2011). [48] Differences between bloggers and the traditional news media must be recognised. The low entry cost to set up a website and the low running costs are in contrast to traditional media, and mean that websites are considerably more susceptible to operators who do not observe good journalistic standards than traditional members of the media. No blogger at this point of time is a member of the Press Council or subject to the Broadcasting Standards Authority, and therefore bloggers have no body imposing upon them a code of ethics and a complaints procedure whereby they can be sanctioned for poor professional standards. Blog sites can vary widely in quality, and Mr Blomfield is very critical of the quality of Whale Oil. [49] It must be recognised that the public is advantaged by the availability of blog sites which are often free and provide instant access to commentary and sometimes breaking news. The fact that those who operate websites are often not owned by large media corporates means that fresh perspectives are presented and the public have more choice. Mr Slater referred to the recent AUT annual internet use report, showing that 81 per cent of New Zealanders say the internet is an important source of information as compared to 47 per cent for television and 37 per cent for radio and newspapers.32 Mr Slater quoted three editorials from prominent newspapers where views were expressed to the effect that he was a journalist. [50] If the legislature had wished to impose a standards regime on bloggers for the purposes of s 68 it could have included a provision akin to that in s 198(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. That section requires members of the news media to be subject to or employed by a person subject to an organization subject to a www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2014/2221.html 11/30