Bloggers Can't Be Journalists?

That's at issue as regards a new piece of proposed legislation which will address and possibly define fundamental aspects of the nature of our public discourse on everything from news to politics.

It's a difficult challenge and apart from what some might think, I don't argue that bloggers as a whole are entitled to sweeping protections of so-called journalists. But, it's even more complex when you realize that some of those so-called journalists might not be worthy of any protections, either.

If anyone wants to tell me that say a Geraldo Rivera occupies some higher ground because of some mysterious accountability factor - I'd respond - that's nonsense. He, among others is probably more irresponsible than many bloggers I know. It's hard to imagine politicians sorting this out in everyone's best interests. Especially when large media is sure to do plenty of lobbying.

The problem begins with the fact that there is no official accreditation process for journalists and clearly they don't want one. In some ways they remind me of educators who want all the benefits of an open classroom and the power of the NEA, yet many continue to dodge taking responsibility for their failures and shortcomings.

Dan Rather wasn't punished in any formal fashion for pushing fraudulent documents on the public in the weeks before a Presidential election. He, like many journalists, was never formally held accountable for misjudgment - bordering on fraud in the Rather instance.

I'm not even convinced any legislation is neccessary right now. Why not let people decide who or what they find credible? Or is that really what large media and the politicans are afraid of?

INDIANAPOLIS Bloggers would "probably not" be considered journalists under the proposed federal shield law, the bill's co-sponsor, U.S. Sen. Richard Lugar (R.-Ind.), told the Inter American Press Association (IAPA) Monday afternoon.

Comments

[frank]

I'm not even convinced any legislation is neccessary right now. Why not let people decide who or what they find credible? Or is that really what large media and the politicans are really afraid of?

Dan, you answered it right there.

This is worth watching for sure.

[suzyqueue]

I'm not even convinced any legislation is neccessary right now. Why not let people decide who or what they find credible? Or is that really what large media and the politicans are really afraid of?

Posted by Dan in News | Permalink

This, to me, is a classic example of a "slippery slope." IMO, To open this door would be tantamount to wrestling jello. There are many disreputable individuals who would possibly be able to claim journalist stature under the proposed legislature. I do not think that the legislation is the proper approach to dealing with the journalism and the First Amendment.

[bmt]

Dan, after watching Rita, and Geraldo and Greta and others on the Natalee case, I would say the blogs were much more responsible. Interesting, in that you are helping to redefine the way that people get and interact with news.

[L.]

For what it is, here's my two cents worth on it.

I would gladly take posts provided by one of my all time favorite bloggers- Steve Huff- as being credible, informative, and responsible vs having to rely on major media to get the story right.

Truth be told most- not all- but most bloggers are writing what is important to them, they may spend hours on fact finding missions before posting anything. Journalist normally cover stories that their networks believe will receive viewership, they don't normally carry the same personal interest in a story that someone blogging about it may.

Bloggers normally aren't in it to gain network approval- so while tweaking the story may increase rating (remember the Superdome) - I see bloggers being more likely to present the facts as they best as they can.

You can give me Riehl World View over ABC News anyday. Thank you very much.

[TheAlamo]

I'm not even convinced any legislation is neccessary right now. Why not let people decide who or what they find credible?

Or is that really what large media and the politicans are really afraid of?

You nailed it! Criminals cannot stand the light...and they sure want the lightswitch under their control....in this "land of the free."

What this is really all about is free speech.
Told ya this was coming. And...it is only the beginning of the suppression of free speech. THAT is the true angle behind having "qualified" or "credible" people, (i.e. hand picked) being "allowed?"(in a free country?).
It will get worse...because this will be "excused" away by people just as we have "excused" the murder of the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights.

In a free society, the market will determine what/who is credible. When a source is deemed unworthy, how many sponsors will it get? How many followers? Who would support it? It would die a quiet death.
We have only a few choices via MSM...already controlled. Now they seek to eliminate the rest of the information, which in some cases is exposing their deeds. (these will be those they determine "unqualified" or "not credible"--darkness hates light) If not, then why is it even an issue?

Just another scam by these damned criminals.

[Katz]

Oh for the love of mike . . . lol. Tons of bravo applause for this post.

[Katz]

of Dan's that is. Claiming multi-tasking challenged here.

[L.]

Seen this tonight- thought you might like it. Seems Yahoo is dancing around with the idea of adding blogs to it's Yahoo News search results.

"Yahoo Inc.'s online news search tool on Monday added Internet journal entries as a supplement to professional media offerings — an experiment that figures to test the public's appetite for information from alternative sources.

Under Yahoo's new approach, a keyword search for online news will include a list of relevant Web logs, or "blogs," displayed in a box to the right of the results collected from mainstream journalism."

[anon]

I've read the text of the proposed act. I don't believe it's appropriate as what I see in the media is purely entertainment of a commercial nature and not a process of informing of events. What we have is a group of commercial entertainers who have staked out a calling for themselves, given it a label, "journalism", and are attempting to get some legislative help to further their commercial interests. Disgusts me.