Eric, I think the move of bloggers-as-journalists towards legitimacy is well under way, and it's moving towards that goal from two directions.

First, there are the bloggers themselves (those with a non-journalistic background) who are adopting rigorous standards for the practice of journalism. It's one thing to post your comment on current events, but it's something else to present a balnced or objective report on current events. But that's exactly what's happening on some blogs.

A question that arises from that ... "Are they still bloggers, or are they e-journalists?"

Second, there is the movement towards blogging from established media journalists. I work for an NBC-affiliated TV station, so I'll use that network and MSNBC.com as an example. More and more content from those media include a blog component. Some are temporary ... like the blog by U.S. athletes at the Athens Olympics. Others are permanent ... like "Bloggerman" and Chris Mathews' "Hardball." Still, they apply the same rules of journalism they would apply during their 'day job' on television.

A question that arises from that ... "Will longtime residents of the blogosphere accept contributions from the evil mainstream media?"

Eric, thanks for kicking off what I'm sure will be an interesting discussion. I'm looking forward to what others have to say on this.

Let's not get too far from the fact that blogs are easily-assembled vanity pages. I've had one of those for over a decade (hand-coded, uphill, in the snow). What you find in them are things that don't have an audience (as defined by the "real" journalists) worth pursuing with real money from real news orgs.

In the event that a blogger considers himself a journalist, and actually breaks a real story that might draw legal fire, there will ideally be a real news org that will step in and provide legal cover, much as they do with free-lancers today, in return for exclusive rights to the story. The Blogging has exposed all of us, who might care, to enough "real" journalists to get the advice we need. I can think of three I could call tomorrow, just from blogging. Whether they'd wake up from their alkie stupor in time to save me from a jail sentence is another question entirely. ;-)

Now, how do I go about getting one of those contributions from the evil MSM? I've still got some Christmas shopping to do.

I think we need to be careful not to confuse the blog -- which is really just an alternative data delivery system -- with the blogger. As Scott points out, anybody can blog; there's essentially no barrier to entry (to borrow a phrase from the business world), and certainly no formal credentialing (although I might argue that the "market" is relatively efficient in providing a practical form of credentialing, in the form of reader volume. But that raises still more issues, among them the question of whether popularity equates with legitimacy).

The big deal that's made out of a "pure blogger" breaking a major news story ("Rathergate" comes to mind) is evidence that bloggers still have a long way to go before they become legitimate alternatives to MSM-employed journalists and the freelancers who work alongside them. Very few bloggers have the track record and audience to attract knowledgeable tipsters who have firsthand knowledge of significant news stories. Also very few occupy positions of power that allow them access to news and newsmakers. (I realize I'm making some crass generalizations here, and that there are exceptions.)

At the same time, by virtue of sheer numbers, at some point and in some place, bloggers are going to be able to report news more quickly and in a different voice than any MSM organization. The daily (and sometimes hourly) reports from Discoshaman and TulipGirl on the Ukrainian election are excellent examples of "regular people" being in the right place, at the right time and with the right communications skills and tools to provide a flow of information and analysis that might otherwise not have been available.

I realize that none of this addresses the issue of whether bloggers who willingly assume the mantle of journalist have actually considered the potential cost. But, like the emperor in the fable, it's one thing to put on the mantle; it's quite another for everyone else to see that you're wearing it.

And to add to the confusion, what makes a journalist credentialed? A paystub from the MSM? A sheepskin from J-school? I reckon a lot of old timers would laugh at the very idea of credentialed journalists, and I'd laugh right along with them.

What we're really addressing here is the fiction that the capital-P Press is something high and mighty, the old fourth estate baloney. They're scribblers just like me and you. Better scribblers with better grammar, maybe, but scribblers. At this point in America's evolution, I don't think they, by dint of an employ ID card from the MorningSnooze, deserve to be behind the police line any more than I do if I want to scribble about it. That's where we're going to have problems soon, if I had to make a guess. Wouldn't surprise me a bit to see a movement to restrict access at flashpoints, and resistance from the hoi-polloi (me and you).

Well, like it or not, that paystub you mention seems to be the credential that gets honored (if that's the right word; working journalists might often disagree) at conventions, sporting events, police lines, press conferences and other occasions deemed worthy of media coverage.

As I recall, the political conventions issued press passes to a handfull of bloggers (compared to hundreds of MSMers). I have no idea what qualifications those fortunate few had to gain that access.

While I respect your belief that you should have, say, police-line access equal to that of a DMN crime beat reporter, I doubt that you'd be successful making that case on the scene, for logistics reasons if nothing else.

Jeff surely has more insight to this issue than me.

WOW ! Where to start?

Let's start with the idea of credentials. Actually, the old-timers (and I'm getting darn close to being one of those!) would NOT "laugh at the very idea of credentialed journalists." That's because credentials were every bit as important in the days of Edward R. Murrow as they are today.

"Credentials" are not something that journalists grant themselves. They are not granted by the institutions for which they work. Credentials are something granted by the government ('the system') in all its shapes and sizes.

While I do have an identification tag certifying that I am employed by a television station, one of my credentials was given to me by Midland County Sheriff Gary Painter ... I needed it in order to cover Geroge Bush's 'Road to the Inauguration' appearance in Midland four years ago.

To use a more exotic example, a reporter is granted credentials by the U.S. Department of Defense in order to be embedded with a military unit fighting in the Iraq War.

And it's not just the government. Those wishing to accompany a political campaign, a convention, or an inaugural ball must get credentials from political parties.

With the credentials comes access not granted to the general public. And, YES, they DO "deserve to be behind the police line any more than [you] do if [you] want to scribble about it."

With those credentials comes their expectation that you will apply education and experience to respect the work being done by police investigators or EMS crews, and to stay the heck out of their way while still gathering information and images to share with the general public.

So, Jeff, what do the credentialing authorities look at to determine if you're worthy?

I would expect that your employment by a "legitimate" news outlet (however that's defined) would be at or near the top of the list. Doesn't that employment status bestow something close to automatic credibility (and didn't I just make a circular argument? ;-) Well, you know what I mean.)?

First off, let me say that these opinions I'm expressing are my own, and are the result of my own experience. Other journalists out there may have very different views, and I'd love to hear them.

Eric, you're right that employment with a legitimate news outlet (I agree, "however that's defined") is a criterion, and an important one.

With your employment by such an outlet comes at least some confidence that the story will be broadcast to others in some manner. And getting the word out to others is an important part of this process.

But that is changing. Those bloggers credentialed to accompany Presidential candidates, and cover the national conventions this past year, offer one example

Employment doesn't alweays grant credibility. There are other, 'unofficial' criteria. One of those would be whether or not your outlet is 'appreciated' by those granting the credentials, or how they perceive the credibility of the applicant. For example, Hunter Thompson of Rolling Stone Magazine was unable to get White House credentials in the early 70s, while the school newspaper George Washington University Hatchet had no problem.

----------

Addressing another point made earlier in these comments, I think it will be up to the individual bloggers - and not the mainstream media, and not the credentialing authorities - to decide whether or not they are journalists.

And that could very well happen in the situation suggested in the original post. At some point, some blogger is going to post something of tremendous interest to the authorities, something they may lack, and something they wish to investigate further. How will the blogger respond to their request he/she identify his/her source?

Journalists are expected by the profession/peers to protect a source ... just ask Jim Taricani in Rhode Island. But are bloggers expected to do the same by their peers?

At some point, I suspect, some blogger will be in a situation like that, and will claim the status of 'journalist' to fight being compelled to reveal a source.

I think the likelihood of such an event is growing each day as the role bloggers in reportig news events continues to grow. "Rathergate" was just one example, but there are others ... wasn't it a blogger who reported the named "Edwards" being added to Kerry's campaign jet?

Credentials are something granted by the government

Problemo numero uno. Who, pray tell, is the government? There's an old piece of paper somewhere that explains that.

The complicit nature of this arrangement is what aggravates me (and I'm not the Lone Ranger, and it's not an original thought.) Surely you can see that the granting of favors (a press pass) makes people like me distrustful of both the press and the gummint.

I'm not quite crisp enough this morning to get to all of the problems I see here...maybe I'll do a durn post instead of clogging up Eric's comments. Stupid p*ker.

Re: government credentialing of journalists. I understand the potential theoretical problems with this, but I'm wondering if in practice, a real problem has ever cropped up as a result of this arrangement. (Of course, the response would be, "How would we know? It wouldn't be reported by the credentialed press!")

Your point about who the government really is is well-taken, but, really, we're governed by proxy in almost every other aspect, and there's a grudging acceptance of that. Maybe we should get to vote on press passes!

I look forward to your post, if you can tear yourself away from the p*ker table, um, screen, um, whatever.

Here's one random thought: I understand govt. creds when it comes to security issues, like being at W's ranch for press conferences, etc. I'm perfectly cool with that. But it shouldn't be automatically limited to MSM. Put another way, if I want to take a week off to follow Kerry around during the election campaigning, and I ask far enough in advance for credentials, I shouldn't be automatically denied simply because my outlet is TFG.c. My suspicion is that I would be, period, end of story, no appeals.

I also understand another thing: bloggers are a potentially monumental PITA to the journalistas and to the gummint. Funny how they intersect here to protect each others franchise, eh? They'll both swear on a stack of bibles that it ain't that way, too.

Bah -- I'm turning into a paranoid gasbag, and I'm tilting at windmills here. The pomposity of both are always enough to defeat me, anyway.

Scott, re: "The pomposity of both are always enough to defeat me, anyway."

Scott, while I have been wordy in trying to explain some of the above, I hope I have at least not been pompous or, as you suggested earlier, "something high and mighty, the old fourth estate baloney."

That being said, I am proud of my experience as a journalist. I regard myself as more than just a "scribbler," and I am proud of those times when my work has excelled above the rest, or done something to make a difference in my community, or both.

And while you may have problems with our government, and with the profession of journalism ... those are your problems, not mine. Sure, I've seen the bad that both can do, but I've also seen the good.

At the same time, I've seen the bad that bloggers can do (NOT in The Fireant Gazzette or The Fat Guy, of course!), but I've also seen the good.

And I'm not alone. People with much greater stature in this business than my own have also noticed. If my own informal poll of journalists around me is any indicator, bloggers are not regarded as "a monumental PITA," but rather as a 'potential,' the possibility of another outlet for the journalistic profession.

There was a time when the internet was regarded in the same way, and television. Before that, it was radio and newsreels and - if you go back far enough - the printed handbill.

Whether or not that potential is ultimately realized on the blogosphere is not up to the mainstream media or the government, but up to you and your fellow bloggers.

Good luck, Scott, and keep tilting at windmills. After all, "they might be giants."

I was afraid you'd take that personally, Jeff, being you're the only journalist here, but I didn't mean it in that way. I appreciate the input from your side of the equation, and I sure don't mean to denigrate your experience or expertise. I don't even have a big problem with journos in general, being a lifetime media junky.

I do have a problem with the high & mighty, and that's the cranky populist streak I inherited from my grandfather. There just seem to be a whole lot of those in the journo/politico ranks. I do see a lot of exclusionary cozying-up, but that may just be my own media scene.

Man, I hate to come in so late on this, but I have to answer a couple of things:

1. Credentials: Credentials are only important when you are trying to go somewhere the general public cannot access. Most public records (like arrest records and the like) do not really require "credentials," although the sheriff probably likes to tell people they do so he doesn't have to mess with the unwashed masses.

2. Jeff says: Let's start with the idea of credentials. Actually, the old-timers (and I'm getting darn close to being one of those!) would NOT "laugh at the very idea of credentialed journalists." That's because credentials were every bit as important in the days of Edward R. Murrow as they are today.

Actually, "old timers" would laugh at credentials, because most of them might have barely graduated high school. I'm, of course, speaking of the days before the great professionalization of journalism in the 1920s, when J-Schools first came into being and had to justify their existence. "Credentials" to them might have meant working your way up from the press room as a teen to working the cop beat to pounding out a column or two every week. Further, "journalism" didn't come into existence in the 20th century, but much earlier, by the likes of John Peter Zenger, etc. Hardly the "credentialed" lot.

3. It's one thing to post your comment on current events, but it's something else to present a balnced or objective report on current events. But that's exactly what's happening on some blogs.
I would be curious to know what Jeff thinks of "journalism" as practiced outside the U.S., which is not quite so "balanced" or "objective"?

4. Finally, critics of current journalism might equate "credentials" as granted by the government with "control," subtle or not. Is the reporting we get out of the Washington Post and NYT a real reflection of reality, or something the government wants us to know?

Just some thoughts to ponder.

Eric, thanks again for providing the forum for this discussion. I enjoyed it, and learned a thing or two in the process ... even if we did stray from the original topic of post just a little bit. So, what else is new? :-)

Scott, thanks for the dialogue. Bottom line: I think bloggers are journailists ... at least that's the way I look at it. And while I can't grant you credential, I can I hoist a virtual "drinky-tink" in your honor, sir. :-)