Metro Says No to Bloggers

I hate reading stories like these about out local agencies. It just pisses me off when arms of public entities, like Metro & WMATA, clam up in the face of blogger requests. Here’s the details:

“But WMATA’s lawyers think blogs definitely aren’t news media, even blogs like Greater Greater Washington. Why? Because they claim we don’t “publish or broadcast news to the public.” To WMATA’s lawyers, “publish” means “disseminate the information, not merely make it available,” citing Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Department of Justice, 185 F.Supp. 2d 54, 59 (D.D.C. 2002), and “disseminate” requires more than simply posting information on a Web site where many people go to read about newsworthy information.”

Essentially, bloggers from Greater Greater Washington sent over PARP requests (think FOIA Request, but for Metro), and Metro told them to get bent because they’re not “media.”

Metro should open doors, not shut them. It only looks worse when you turn people away.

Tom Bridge

I live and work in the District of Columbia. I write at We Love DC, a blog I helped start, I work at Technolutionary, a company I helped start, and I’m happy doing both. I enjoy watching baseball, cooking, and gardening. I grow a mean pepper, keep a clean scorebook, and wash the dishes when I’m done. Read Why I Love DC.

4 thoughts on “Metro Says No to Bloggers”

hello? web 2.0? is that you?

I say RSS counts as distributing… that’s how I received it :)

It’s an inane distinction. Does a newspaper that doesn’t offer home delivery only “make available” information? How about television or radio, both of which distribute information in a way that requires the audience to own their own receiving equipment?

If I don’t receive a publication because I don’t pick it up… let’s just say for convenience-sake the Express, does that mean they are not worthy of this definition. I read We Love DC and I get a lot of information there. Is that not worthy of this definition? Also, who’s to say what is worthy in this day and age. People subvert newspapers regularly by finding their information on the internet. I agree, Metro should open its doors.

KatieT on October 13, 2008 at 9:51 pm said:

hello? web 2.0? is that you?
Brock on October 14, 2008 at 1:31 pm said:

I say RSS counts as distributing… that’s how I received it :)
Don on October 14, 2008 at 4:25 pm said:

It’s an inane distinction. Does a newspaper that doesn’t offer home delivery only “make available” information? How about television or radio, both of which distribute information in a way that requires the audience to own their own receiving equipment?
Will H. on October 15, 2008 at 9:05 am said:

If I don’t receive a publication because I don’t pick it up… let’s just say for convenience-sake the Express, does that mean they are not worthy of this definition. I read We Love DC and I get a lot of information there. Is that not worthy of this definition? Also, who’s to say what is worthy in this day and age. People subvert newspapers regularly by finding their information on the internet. I agree, Metro should open its doors.