In which circumstance can a journalist be considered to have jurisdiction in a case?

A journalist can be considered to have jurisdiction in a case when they are present in a state for an unrelated court proceeding. This presence can establish a meaningful connection to that jurisdiction, as courts often consider the physical presence of a person within their borders as a basis for exercising jurisdiction. If a journalist is attending a court hearing or any related legal activity, it creates a sufficient nexus to warrant the court's jurisdiction over them, even if the matter at hand is unrelated to their professional work.

In contrast, merely residing in a state during the writing of an article does not automatically confer jurisdiction, as there could be other factors at play that negate this connection. The location of the publisher might influence jurisdiction, but it is primarily the actions and physical presence of the journalist that takes precedence in establishing jurisdiction. Additionally, if the article is published in a particular state only, it does not by itself imply that the journalist has jurisdiction in that state unless complemented by other significant ties.