First off, whats the difference?

A journalist writes for a media outlet, a blogger writes for new age media, a blog. At the end of the day they are both doing the same thing. Of course, journalist can also work for a television broadcast such as CBC Television.

Both are doing their work for a target audience. Bloggers blog for their readers, and journalist publish their stories in the newspaper and on the internet.

Both have an audience and both are a form of media. So why do we differentiate between who needs access to the press gallery/who receives press passes and who doesn't? Because not everyone really needs that access.

With free services out there like Blogger, Wordpress, Typepad anyone can start a blog. It's simple, enter a username, password, and maybe your email address and your set to go. Now your ready for the best seats in the house and the free press passes. Hold on a second.

While this does put you on the map with social media and you have established a website, do you really need all the perks? With no barrier to entry, everyone and their dog will be creating a blog to start receiving the free passes, access to special places and what have you.

As such, limits have to be placed on who can access a press gallery & who can't but those limits have to be fair.

This is where we have different rules for different situations.

In relation to social media, maybe the limits will have to be based on what the goal of the company is. If you wish to receive the same access as other journalist, there must be standards. Journalists have to agree to a code of ethics, so shouldn't blogger when they request access to any press related outlets? Then we would need to look at the purpose as to why someone would want access. Are they there to report what is going on or are they there to make a disgrace of someone. If the goal is to make a disgrace, then no thanks, not interested.

Had a press pass before, so you should get one again? Not exactly. I have media passes to the 2005 Jazz & Blues Festival and the 2006 East Coast Music Awards. Did I need them? Not really, anything I had done could have been done without a media pass.

Other things that will have to be looked at are, are you going to be constantly reporting on the news? If the goal of the company is to write a cookbook, then chances are you don't need access.

Who ever is responsible for granting the press passes will have to do their homework on the individuals requesting one. Walking up to a desk and saying I own a website is not a good enough reason to have a press pass. Obviously, an application will need to be completed with questions to the above answers and more.

In closing (until I open again later with some more thoughts on this), I don't think everyone who has a blog or has a Twitter account should be able to get a press pass. Not only because there is no room, but there is little to no need to have special access when you won't really need it. I think it is okay for some bloggers to receive them but only those who are working for a credible media company and not a fly by night company.

This is a topic that comes up a lot - especially when you talk about ethics of a journalist vs. a blogger - and in order to maintain credibility and get access to certain things, you have to earn that privilege.

You and I have talked before. I do car reviews for a website called AutoNorth and live up in Summerside. It took me a very long time, within the blogosphere, to get to where I am now. New media is the wild west of the media space, and only the strong survive. You need to carve a niche for yourself in order to be credible. ESPECIALLY in Canada.

The main difference between traditional media and new media is cost of entry. With traditional media - be it print, television, or radio - there is usually a high cost of entry paid for by a large investment. The person or corporation making that investment is going to expect a return on their money. As such, the media outlet receiving that investment isn't going to 'rock the boat', if you know what I mean. There is a lot of risk involved in starting up a new entity in the traditional media space.

But, new media on the other hand is a whole other can of beans. You touched on the fact that anyone can start a blog or website. The cost of entry into the new media space is small. What happens if your blog or website is a failure and you create a bad name for yourself? You put said blog into the Recycle Bin and start all over. This is something traditional media outlets cannot afford to do.

Organizations, whether it be political parties, governments, courts, local businesses or, in my case, automotive manufacturers, don't want to take that risk on an unknown quantity (for the most part) unless you have proven your personal investment. By that I mean, instead of making a financial investment into a traditional media outlet, you are making an investment into growing your readership while also sticking to a certain set of values. Organizations and companies will recognize this in the long run.

Being a blogger isn't an automatic gold ticket to Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory and to think that you'll get that is just plain foolish.

Interesting post John. I agree that the issue should generally be taken on a case-by-case basis. Just wondering why a blogger should belong to a credible media corporation for accreditation though? Peter Rukavina doesn't belong to a credible media corporation but he is a relatively trusted source of opinion and information on current issues and as we saw with opencorporations.org, he even has helped create transparency in many cases.

I wonder why we esteem the corporate press so highly? After all, it is within their mandate to generate monetary profit, a huge conflict of interest (don't piss off the advertisers).

If you have time, check out my latest blog post related to the topic and let me know what you think. It includes an essay I wrote on the journalist/weblog divide.

Mitch: There are certainly lots of credible people out there who discuss local and current issues however that does not mean they should have access to a press pass. I really think this needs to be restricted to those in the business of reporting on events on a frequent basis and not on an issue by issue basis.

While you might consider it a conflict of interest that they don't piss off their advertisers, it is also up to the paper to report good credible news to its readers or else it won't have readers, and then no advertisers.

I'll checkout your blog a bit later.

Another thought to ponder: Lets assume for a minute here that Peter (as an example) has a larger readership then The Guardian. Shouldn't Peter qualify for a press pass?

I study journalism at Holland College. Over the next two years I will invest around $8,000 in tuition fees and lose around $40,000 in wages while I put all my time into crafting my own style which, hopefully, some outlet will want.

Even then, after two years of study and almost $50,000 later, I will still not be accredited media. I will first have to find someone willing to hire me as a reporter and then prove my ability to cover legislative proceedings. And still, I may find myself sitting in the public gallery.

Why on earth should someone with a 25 cent blog beat me and every other journalism student to the finish line? That wouldn't be fair.

@John: Certainly, The Guardian for example picks and chooses what is reported from the legislature based on factors including the political and financial repercussions weighed versus their ethical, civic, and social responsibility. So qualifying a press member based on their frequency and focus of reporting gets pretty cloudy. Re corporate media and advertising, popularity and advertising income aren't necessarily related to the quality of reporting and have no relationship to the diversity and freedom of information flow, though, there are many documented examples of corporate media's commercial biases.

@Andrew: It would be fair if they were more skilled or driven toward providing quality information for public discourse. That's the distinction I would rather see used, skill over credentials. In most cases we hope an educated/trained journalist has the tools to provide more insightful and well-rounded reporting, but it's not always the case.

Ultimately, why should anyone be denied the opportunity to report from the legislature? Lack of resources is a ludicrous reason, with PEI's hyper-representation, members of the legislature have plenty of time to take questions. Even in Mr. Pate's case, who says journalists have to play nicely or be in good-taste? As long as his publications don't break the law, who has the moral imperative to deny him? I think the underlying issue is the "traditional" media trying to retain their journalistic authority.

Recently a Holland College journalism instructor stated on CBC TV that the PNP discussion should be dropped because the public is no longer interested in it. Should a journalist abandon the topic, even though they may feel compelled to dig deeper on moral grounds? Personally, I would trust a motivated, independent blogger to do this over a journalist whose paycheque may suffer because of ruffled feathers. And I should have the ability to choose between many different information sources who have an equal opportunity to interact with legislators.

A variety of news sources, bloggers included, buffers against information monopolies. I think it's great that this debate is taking place, it's a step toward a population that critically examines its government and civic processes. I hope whatever the solution is for PEI, that it can be used as a progressive model in other jurisdictions.

@Mitch: While income is not always related to the quality of reporting, if The Guardian started printing false stories then I think they'd see a major drop off of their subscribers, which in turn will affect the amount of advertisers.

I think we see this present day where some blogs that are looking for advertising have trouble finding sponsors who are willing to advertise on said blog. Especially when most of it is non-sense.