Who is or is not a "journalist"
will generally be defined by the states in the states' shield laws. The states often vary significantly in their definitions.
In Alabama, for example, a person can be considered a journalist if the person is "a person engaged in, connected with, or employed on any newspaper, radio broadcasting station or television station, while engaged in a newsgathering capacity," which appears on its face to exclude most bloggers. This definition is echoed in the wording of many other states' laws.
On the other hand, in Michigan, a journalist is "a reporter or other person who is involved in the gathering or preparation of news for broadcast or publication," and this definition appears to cover both traditional and nontraditional journalists (ie. bloggers). And some 6th Circuit
lower federal court decisions
have applied the shield law privilege to nontraditional reporters (but these have set no precedent).
Last year, by the way, one of Michigan's senators was the single sponsor of a bill that would establish in the state a government board for the registration of state journalists, to provide the public with an idea of who was doing the reporting of their news and where the news was coming from.
To register, a journalist would have to, among other things, have a degree in journalism or experience equal to a degree, submit writing samples, AND HAVE GOOD MORAL AND ETHICAL CHARACTER. Other than providing a few good laughs for journalists in the state and the discussed belief that no one would be able to register
, a bill such as this would not pass constitutional muster. In fairness to the Senator, he did propose that registration would be
voluntary, and his purpose with the bill was mostly to spark debate.
As for the "dinosaur media" comment, although the last few years have been awfully rough on traditional newspapers throughout the country, they are adjusting to the internet age and recovering from the horrible economy which forced the closure of many papers - and this recovery is
good news.