L.A. Observed's Kevin Roderick gets it right when he questions whether the column's author, David Shaw, has visited the 'sphere he's so quick to diss(miss).
Shaw frames the issue though the recent Santa Clara Superior Court decision holding that the publishing of Apple's trade secrets was publishing stolen property, not journalism protected by California shield law. The judge "declined to say" whether bloggers are reporters. Wisely so, since I'd love to see how he'd figure it out. About dasterdly, lazy bloggers, Shaw writes:
BLOGGERS require no journalistic experience. All they need is computer access and the desire to blog. There are other, even important differences between bloggers and mainstream journalists, perhaps the most significant being that bloggers pride themselves on being part of an unmediated medium, giving their readers unfiltered information. And therein lies the problem.As Roderick says in his post, Shaw ignores the many journalists who blog and the blogs that have broken (legitimate, grammatically correct) stories.
Shaw gives passing credit to bloggers' role in Rather's memogate, but follows it up by citing bloggers' speculation about the bulge under Bush's debate wear. "No credible evidence has emerged to support that charge," writes Shaw.
Most major papers took the lead in circulating speculation about Iraq's WMD and no credible evidence ever emerged to support that charge either.