Comments on: Panel explores giving reporters' shield to bloggers

Congress weighs new law that would protect reporters from revealing confidential sources. What's in it for bloggers?

[Earl Benser]

It's simple...

As long as no one can seem to define what a journalist is, then
consider every one a journalist, no matter how little they do. Since
most suppposed journalists aren't worth a damn anyhow, no sense
excluding the incompetent amatuer, even the totally incompetent
ones. Bloggers tend to fit in there somewhere.

Some are quite good

Some bloggers are really quite good journalists though. Like Huffington Post, that's better than most stuff I read even off of Reuters.

[Darryl Snortberry]

Well...

Well...ditto

[Earl Benser]

It's simple...

As long as no one can seem to define what a journalist is, then
consider every one a journalist, no matter how little they do. Since
most suppposed journalists aren't worth a damn anyhow, no sense
excluding the incompetent amatuer, even the totally incompetent
ones. Bloggers tend to fit in there somewhere.

Some are quite good

Some bloggers are really quite good journalists though. Like Huffington Post, that's better than most stuff I read even off of Reuters.

[Darryl Snortberry]

Well...

Well...ditto

[montgomeryburns]

Fire Molly Wood

Fire Molly Wood.

[montgomeryburns]

Fire Molly Wood

Fire Molly Wood.

reporters and protection

There should be a law which protects sources from reporters. The 'freedom of the press' ethic is often misused, especially with the telephone when callers demand information and replies claiming application of that ethic. 'Freedom of speech' ethic is also misused concurrently to make repeated calls and demands to have replies -- no matter what is happening in one's personal life. And, someone just might be scheduled to come carry the 'contact' away, or confront on the street.

In that way pertinent lawsuits can never be filed because personal attention is always diverted, and so justice is obstructed. There is some reason to believe that constant-caller strategies are intentional and operate to keep some matters out of court so that no-one loses a company when misconduct is properly investigated and documented.

Also, anything that is said during a call-demand strategy is used somewhere, somehow. Entire books are fabricated using words and phrases elicited from intimidated respondents. Example:
'Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince', the words "half-blood" there on the cover but lacking sensibility.

reporters and protection

There should be a law which protects sources from reporters. The 'freedom of the press' ethic is often misused, especially with the telephone when callers demand information and replies claiming application of that ethic. 'Freedom of speech' ethic is also misused concurrently to make repeated calls and demands to have replies -- no matter what is happening in one's personal life. And, someone just might be scheduled to come carry the 'contact' away, or confront on the street.

In that way pertinent lawsuits can never be filed because personal attention is always diverted, and so justice is obstructed. There is some reason to believe that constant-caller strategies are intentional and operate to keep some matters out of court so that no-one loses a company when misconduct is properly investigated and documented.

Also, anything that is said during a call-demand strategy is used somewhere, somehow. Entire books are fabricated using words and phrases elicited from intimidated respondents. Example:
'Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince', the words "half-blood" there on the cover but lacking sensibility.