"Bloggers" may not be eligible for Shield Law protection
This is a blog. But I do not consider myself a "blogger" anymore than I consider myself to be any other direct category. It is a fun hobby, and at times I hope it is a service to my clients in that I can continue to communicate long after the close of the deal or the end of a class.
So I guess I would not call myself a journalist either. But I should unless I wish to be held accountable for slanderous statements such as "Microsoft, McDonalds and similar large corporations get away with unthinkable moral violations because not even God is as forgiving as the profit motive."
The good part is that as a "blogger" (if I were one) I am but one ant in an insignificant hill of milions of others mouthing off because the internet is anonymous and easy. And now the federal government is spending time and our tax dollars arguing over how to classify this method of sharing ideas.
Some blogs are very influential and have changed minds and in some cases the course of significant events. Each of those blogs began one day with a first reader, then grew from word of mouth by hitting the right nerve at the right time.
Maybe the problems suggested in the article referenced below are so difficult to solve because we need a completely new way to describe what is considered "delivering news". Instead of one talking head viewed by millions everynight on television, what is the impact of a dilluted stream of almost random data delivered through a global medium and left TRULY in the hands of the "marketplace"?
"Bloggers" may not be eligible for Shield Law protection
So I guess I would not call myself a journalist either. But I should unless I wish to be held accountable for slanderous statements such as "Microsoft, McDonalds and similar large corporations get away with unthinkable moral violations because not even God is as forgiving as the profit motive."
The good part is that as a "blogger" (if I were one) I am but one ant in an insignificant hill of milions of others mouthing off because the internet is anonymous and easy. And now the federal government is spending time and our tax dollars arguing over how to classify this method of sharing ideas.
Some blogs are very influential and have changed minds and in some cases the course of significant events. Each of those blogs began one day with a first reader, then grew from word of mouth by hitting the right nerve at the right time.
Maybe the problems suggested in the article referenced below are so difficult to solve because we need a completely new way to describe what is considered "delivering news". Instead of one talking head viewed by millions everynight on television, what is the impact of a dilluted stream of almost random data delivered through a global medium and left TRULY in the hands of the "marketplace"?
"Bloggers" may not be eligible for Shield Law protection
