A former reporter who is now a blogger was removed from a juvenile court room after the judge decided a blogger is not considered a journalist under Illinois law (is there actually a law? or is it more like there’s a lack of a law?). Before having the reporter removed, the judge consulted with four attorneys who were in the courtroom. The two families’ attorneys did not object, but the Asst. State’s Attorney and another lawyer apparently representing DCFS did object. (This strikes me as odd, since the families involved are the ones who ought to be closest to the minors involved in the case. Why would unrelated attorneys want a reporter removed?)

The instance is interesting because the blogger involved is in fact a former reporter and the members of the court knew this from her coverage of prior court cases. Billy Dennis — of Peoria Pundits — reports that the blogger, Elaine Hopkins, was a Peoria Journal-Star reporter for much of her career but left there to pursue independent advocacy journalism … self-publishing through her blog, Peoria Story.

Juvenile court in Illinois is closed to the public to protect the minors involved. Only journalists, attorneys and a select few others are allowed to be present during hearings; many times family members are not even allowed in the courtroom. As reporter Hopkins notes, “But in reality the secrecy also allows these courts to operate without any public oversight.”

Now, to be sure, not every blogger is a journalist just as not every reporter is a blogger. (I don’t consider myself to be a reporter, just a citizen-writer.) But, there are indeed some bloggers who are journalists and some journalists who are bloggers. In the very loosest sense, a blog is just like any other medium used to transfer information just as a newspaper uses paper or cable news channels use TV equipment — and those who use that medium to convey news ought properly to be considered members of the press.

Illinois political reporter and columnist (and blogger) Rich Miller notes that those who consider themselves to be bloggers and legitimate reporters, but are unaffiliated with an established news organization, may wish to join the National Writers Union. Mr. Miller is himself a member. Most of the work he does is as an independent, self-publishing journalist (he publishes his own newsletter and his own blog, in addition to writing a column for a Chicago-area news company).

(Weak attempt at adding humor: For those keeping score at home, as of this writing the So-Called Austin Mayor had not posted about this development on his own so-called blog.)

UPDATE: Rich Miller refers in comments here (as does Yellow Dog Democrat in comments on Rich’s now-updated post on the subject) to relevant portions of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, namely Section 1-2, Purpose and policy (including “liberally construed” interpretations of the Act) and Section 1-5, Rights of parties to proceedings (including the “news media”) which indicate that not only are journalists allowed in the courtroom but also that interpretations of journalists should be “liberally construed” (likely in an effort to make what would otherwise be sealed proceedings somewhat transparent and open).

Based on the reading of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 it appears the Asst. State’s Attorney, the other anonymous lawyer who may or may not have been with DCFS, and (most importantly) the judge himself are in the wrong as the “news media” are to be allowed in the courtroom to observe proceedings and the courts are to “liberally” interpret the provisions of the act (including, one would naturally presume, interpretations of who is or isn’t “news media” since there are no disclaimers in the act defining “news media”).

Let’s hope reporter Hopkins returns to that courtroom to follow her “news media” pursuits, this time armed with this new knowledge of the relevant statute’s sections.

FYI, the definition of “news” is “a report of a recent event; intelligence; information” which is clearly what journalist Elaine Hopkins intended to do had she been allowed to observe the court proceedings (and, again, the families’ attorneys ok’ed her being there). In fact, that is exactly what she did do after being removed from the court.