arstechnica.com — Journalists aren't defined by a title but by what they produce, and a recent federal ruling allows bloggers who produce journalism to have the same rights and privileges as more traditional news writers.
Oct 31, 2007 View in Crawl 4
vertinoxOct 31, 2007
When the Bill of Rights were written, a journalist was basically any Joe Schmoe who could read and write and had access to a printing press. Heck... Most of the founding fathers had been writing anon or psuedo-name pamphlets against the British rule that were often slanderous compared to today standards.The only difference between a journalist in the 1770s and today is basically the technology.Although, I'm sure the MSM would love for the government to deem them the only "valid" journalists around.
dartmanxNov 1, 2007
How does that differ from the regular media, or the city specific "alternative" newspapers (the Dallas Observer and St Louis Riverfront Times comes to mind immediately).
look4alecNov 1, 2007
Why did it take a federal court to declare this? A "journalist" is a name given to someone who is subjectively deemed qualified to provide information to others: the key word being subjectively. All journalist is subjective so how is Perez Hilton any less of a journalist than Bill'O? Poor examples, but you see what I am saying.
Closed AccountNov 1, 2007
Actually, this is already happening in "valid" news outlets.