Chris Nolan at Politics from Left to Right calls out Markos Moulitsas, aka DailyKos, for wearing press credentials at a DNC caucus--Nolan contends that this undermines Kos's rejection of traditional journalistic objectivity, a stance I implicitly supported just the other day. I don't retract my earlier conclusions, but I wonder why Kos went for the press tags when he has vigourously rejected the "journalist" label. Apparently you can get "observer" credentials, which identify you as a supporter of a particular cause, but Kos seems to have felt that would have been inadequate. According to Nolan,
"[Kos is] certainly justified in claiming that his audience makes him a kind of reporter so people who talk to him know they have a reduced expectation of privacy. That's why the press gets tagged.
"But this sort of behavior undermines all the arguments Kos made last week. And it leads us right back to the path of full and open disclosure, now doesn't it? And that's a path Kos is refusing to take. That's not good for anyone who's calling themselves a "blogger.""
So is Kos trying to have it both ways, wielding press status when it suits him and discarding it when he has an axe to grind? I'm sympathetic with his dilemma--I don't know if calling him an "observer" really makes sense in any context. But he himself has said he's not a journalist. Either we need to expand our definition of "journalists," or we need to beef up the significance of "observers," or we need some new, third category. Advocate?
UPDATE: The DailyKos himself has responded to Chris Nolan:
As for "press" badge, I am media. [Ed.: "Hear me roar!"] Jon Stewart would wear the same badge, even though he's not a journalist. Same with Dave Barry. Or a style columnist for Bazaar.
In today's media environment, "press" and "journalism" are no longer synonymous. Not everything published is "journalism". "Press" is actually more akin to "media".
Seriously, are you finding this that confusing? It's not that complicated.
The idea that "press" = "media," and that both categories include "journalists" as well as, er, "non-journalists" ("others"?) is well worth considering. It's essentially the same issue I raised above.
But like Jon Stewart hiding behind the role of "comic" to deflect attention from his actual influence, Kos is being disingenuous, and a bit of an ass, by suggesting that Nolan's "confusion" is the problem.
