Down but not out

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/30/AR2009103003343.html?wprss=rss_politics

Here is a link to the latest update on the media shield law and where it stands. One part of the change that jumped out at me states:

The compromise also expands the definition of those covered, eliminating previous language that required those individuals to be employed by or to have a contract with a news organization. Under the new language, protection would be available to people who have the "primary intent . . . to disseminate to the public news" from the "inception of the news gathering process."

As a result, coverage would be available to freelance authors, people who write for local news outlets without pay and, potentially, to many bloggers.

This is a big change from what we discussed in class during Pro. Ryan's lecture. I'm not sure what the ripple effect of having bloggers covered may be per se. It does seem to open up a pretty big can of worms.

To include a provision in the shield law that would cover outlets that don't follow any standard media rules and framework seems unreasonable. I would be surprised if even a third of all bloggers know what the journalist's code of ethics is or follow any of the tools such as the Potter Box before putting information on to a site.

Does anyone else think this has the potential to go too far?