From ars technica:

Senator Richard Lugar (R.-Ind.) recently revealed that so-called bloggers would "probably not" be considered journalists by the Free Flow of Information Act of 2005, which will include provisions detailing "shield law" protections for journalists. In effect, this could mean that it will be open season on those pesky bloggers once this bill passes.

According to the first draft of the Free Flow of Information Act of 2005, the "covered person" protected by the bill's terms includes "any entity that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means and that publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical in print or electronic form; operates a radio or television station (or network of such stations), cable system, or satellite carrier, or channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier; or operates a news agency or wire service." The legislation also covers employees, contractors or other persons who "gathers, edits, photographs, records, prepares, or disseminates news or information for any such entity."

Lugar did say that he expects plenty of debate on the matter, but added "Are bloggers journalists or some of the commercial businesses that you here would probably not consider real journalists? Probably not, but how do you determine who will be included in this bill?"

The debate is nothing new; I raised this issue back in April with regards to the definition of "blog," although some "bloggers" took offense at my suggestion that it was not clear just what a blog is. Make no mistake about it: in Big Media circles, confusion reigns supreme.

How can that be, you ask? It's simple. There is no "journalist certification," no "entrance exam," no "licensing test"—in short, there's no true definition. It's not like real estate, where one is either a realtor or one is not. One could point to collegiate "journalism" or "communications" degrees, but then a problem arises when so many journalists—some would say the majority—lack such a degrees. It doesn't help that at many schools, the degrees are fluff: at a certain unnamed school, "communications" is just a synonym for "what the athletes study." I've heard it's like this at more than one school, too.

And I have to ask: why does, for example, someone writing for CNet deserve protection while a "blogger" does not? Take this rather sensationalizing article at CNet. They saw a private Intel roadmap and spun it into a story about "golly gee that's a lot of chips!". Were Intel to object, they'd likely be safe. But what about Fred's Page of CPU Madness (hypothetical site)? Why does a private roadmap in the hands of one "journalist" rate as OK, while in the hands of a blogger, it's not?

Lest I fall into the trap of demagoguery, there is a difference to contemplate. How are we to know, in our hypothetical example, if Fred's Page of CPU Madness isn't run by an Intel employee or partner with direct access to the information in question? I don't think this is a "screw the Man" scenario; there are real, tangible concerns when it comes to issues of propriety. Still, I don't think professional journalism conquers these issues by design. Rather, most media shops have a least a decent understanding of their writers' backgrounds, which in theory normally precludes Joe Journalist from having a secret job with Intel, for instance (of course, this doesn't speak to the issue of leaks, sources, etc., but the point should be clear enough).

The reason all of this matters, of course, is because it is essential that journalists receive special protections to ensure them freedom of the press. The case of ThinkSecret et alia comes to mind (although that problem largely looks solved now, as TS has managed to report several conflicting rumors relating to today's big Apple event in the span of a week—one could say that they give all insanity equal billing).

Sayeth Dick Lugar:

"I think, very frankly, you can make a case that this is a special boon for reporters, and certainly for their role in freedom of the press," he said. "At the end of the day what we will come out with says there is something privileged about being a reporter, and being able to report on something without being thrown into jail."

In all of this talk of privilege, there is a mounting fear in some journalism circles that the federal government may want to leverage this "privilege" with a federal licensing program of sorts, which is enough to make some people twitch. How else will this dilemma be solved? And two demerits to the person who pops up and says, "false dilemma!"