This is exactly the issue I am deliberately to raising by bloggers seeking admission to the News Corp meeting in whatever capacity they choose. A For-Profit intention should be irrelevant and the method of distribution should be too. Hope you all can join us.
Paul Bendat http://maynereport.blip.tv/ > On Oct 17, 2007, at 2:57 PM, Jay dedman wrote: > > > > I just don't see how a "free and independent press" doesn't > > include people > > > who get a bug up their rear and publishing something, with no > > regard for > > > their livelihood or personal financial gain. What about journalism > > > students, who often take chances on writing provocative stuff - > > because- they > > > have no need to earn a paycheck? To me, this was designed to > > apply only to > > > the corporate press who have a vested interest in being the only > > > organizations allowed to call employees and freelancers > > "journalists." > > > As David points out, it only matters how this applies in the > > courts. A law > > > doesn't mean much without legal precedent to give it nuance. > > > > agreed. > > what issue are they traying to solve? > > why not just say "anyone can say whatever they want without having > > to prove it." > > To me, it sounds like Congress is trying to make sure the person has a > > history of telling stories which makes them more trustworthy. > > > > Lets talk about some use cases. > > > > Jay > > > > -- > > http://jaydedman.com > > 917 371 6790 > > Video: http://ryanishungry.com > > Twitter: http://tinyurl.com/2aodyc > > RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9 > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
