alright, so i’ve finished my paper and turned it in, although i wish i didnt have to just yet. this issue is one that has just begun to grow and i feel that trying to make any conclusions now is pointless. the credibility of bloggers is increasing and changing and it still all depends on who you ask.
but, since it was for a class and on a deadline, i came up with a conclusion anyhow. when it comes to bloggers having rights and credibility, the public thinks they deserve it (for the most part). this is evident in the rising popularity of blogs and the fact that people are giving more authority to bloggers. however, the big officials are still refusing to accept bloggers as equal to professional journalists, for the most part. For example, the French government recently banned non-professional journalists from filming and releasing footage of violent acts and blogger Josh Wolf has been in jail for a record number of days now for refusing to disclose a tape he has of a political protest.
So what does this mean for the future of blogs? well, it’s hard to tell for sure, but my guess is that, sooner than later, bloggers will begin to get some of the same rights, privileges and access that journalists have. They’ll be protected under a form of the shield law and they will start wearing press passes around their necks at red carpet premiers. but i dont think the laws will be exactly the same…they’ll have to include some caveats for bloggers, because it might make it too easy for a guilty felon to cover his ass by getting his accomplices to become bloggers and therefore protect him as a source. some loophole like that will undoubtedly show up.
this issue, like i said, will only get bigger and will only climb up on the agenda. keep your eyes open, and keep blogging 
Gee, isn’t that what happened with the Chronicle reporters, the guilty person, leaked information and then based on his own leaked information getting out, used that to ask for a mistrial? All the concerns raised about “bloggers” being journalists are just as valid for more traditonal media journalist. The real question is, is it important for the public to be imformed from multiple sources and to have stories exposed.Which in the long run serves the greatest good? Getting all the stories out there and forcing law enforcement to use sources other than journalists to pursue criminal activity? Or keeping people from knowing about possible criminal activity because of endangering journalists who report it?
Comment by liz — March 22, 2007 @ 5:27 am
tough question. personally, i’m all for the information aspect of it. i think the more information the public gets, the better. if it requires evaluating bloggers a little more closely to see how many rights they should have, then so be it. but, the criteria will have to be tough.
Comment by Nicki Arnold — March 25, 2007 @ 6:24 pm