If Bloggers Aren’t Journalists, Neither Are Many Members of the MSM

Big Journalism ^ | February 1, 2012 | Alicia Cohen

[Kaslin]

Now that is enough. Stop it

[freemarketsfreeminds]

Whacked that out of the park. Nice post.

[MHGinTN]

I’ll take your word for that, gunner. I don’t visit that many blogs to know what you know. ... Keep up the good work slapping blogpimps’ tiny behindees, BTW.

[MHGinTN]

Cartoon characters, just like the vast majority of the vermin euphemistically known as ‘the media’.

[abb]

This era in history is one I intend to study more closely. The law was designed to deal with those pesky folks who printed stuff the King didn’t like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_1662

The Licensing of the Press Act 1662 is an Act of the Parliament of England (14 Car. II. c. 33), long title “An Act for preventing the frequent Abuses in printing seditious treasonable and unlicensed Bookes and Pamphlets and for regulating of Printing and Printing Presses.” It was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1863.

Printing presses were not to be set up without notice to the Stationers’ Company. A king’s messenger had power by warrant of the king or a secretary of state to enter and search for unlicensed presses and printing. Severe penalties by fine and imprisonment were denounced against offenders. The act was successively renewed up to 1679.

Under the powers of the act Sir Roger L’Estrange was appointed licenser, and the effect of the supervision was that practically the newspaper press was reduced to the London Gazette. The objections made to lines 594-599 of the first book of Paradise Lost by the archbishop of Canterbury’s chaplain, acting as licenser, are well known. The act expired in 1679, and for the remainder of the reign of Charles II, as in the reign of George III, the restrictions on the press took the form of prosecutions for libel.

[abb]

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=47336#s1

Contents

Recital that the regulating of Printers is matter of public Care, and that many have been of late encouraged to print and sell seditious. Pamphlets, &c.

II. No private Person to print any Book, &c. unless first entered with the Stationers’ Company of London; Exceptions; and unless first duly licensed.

III. Every Person authorized to license, to have one written Copy of the Book; which is to be delivered by Licenser to the Owner for printing, and afterwards returned to the Licenser to be kept.

IV. Merchants and Importers of Books to import the same into London only, unless special Licence;

V. No Persons to print or import Copies of Books, Books, Indentures, &c. in which others have any Right by Letters Patent, &c. solely to print, without the Consent of the Owners;

VI. Printers of Books, &c. to set their Names thereto, and declare the Name of the Author if required.

VII. No Haberdasher of Small Wares, &c. not licensed, nor being a Freeman of London, nor a Member of the Stationers’ Company, to sell, &c. Books, &c.

VIII. No Merchant or other Person to print beyond Sea or import English Books, &c.

IX. No Person to erect a Printing Press or House, or let Premises for Printing, without giving Notice to the Stationers’ Company.

X. No Person to be admitted a Master Printer till the Master Printers be reduced to Twenty, (Exception) which number is to be continued, and Four Master Letter Founders.; In case of Death, &c. of any Master Printer or Founder, the said Archbishop, &c.; to appoint another.

XI. The Number of Presses which Master Printers are allowed to keep.

XII. The Number of Apprentices which Printers (except the King’s Printer) and Letter Founders are allowed to take and retain.

XIII. Master Printers and Master Letter Founders to take care that Journeymen are employed;

XIV. Messengers of the King’s Chamber by Warrant under Sign Manual or the Hand of Secretary of State, or Master and Wardens of Stationers’ Company, with a Constable, may search Houses, &c. for Books, &c. and may demand a Sight of Licence; and seize Books and Offenders.; Justices may imprison.; If Searchers find unlicensed Book which they suspect, they may seize and take it to Archbishop; &c.

XV. Printers, Letter Founders, &c. working for the Trade, offending.

XVI. Printers to reserve Three Copies of every Book, one for the King’s Library, and one for each of the Universities.

XVII. Proviso for Universities licensing.

XVIII. No Search in Houses of Peers, or of Persons using other Trades, without special Licence.

XIX. Booksellers may import certain Books ready bound not formerly prohibited.

XX. Proviso for Persons who have sold Books or Papers in Westminster Hall, Palace of Westminster, &c.

XXI. Proviso for Grantees under the Great Seal, &c.

XXII. Proviso for John Streater, Stationer.

XXIII. Proviso for keeping and using a Printing Press in the City of York with Conditions.

[freemarketsfreeminds]

The elites never change. Always trying to stay on top by enacting laws to keep the “rabble” down.

[fuzzylogic]

I seriously believe that journalists should be required to earn a license via examination and be held accountable to standards that can be reviewed by a board (similar to lawyers). If they breach the standards they may have their license taken away...and become a blogger.

[jessduntno]

sarc

sarc

[bvw]

So true

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Bloggers actually are a few steps beneath the MSM.

Any homeless puke in a public library can write a blog, while most of the MSM have "sue-able" assets to protect.

Bloggers risk nothing when posting the most ignorant unfounded garbage they can dream up.

. . . and what do wire service journalists and wire service members risk "when posting the most ignorant unfounded garbage they can dream up?" They risk nothing - because if they lie, the entire rest of wire service journalism will swear to it.

In fact, the only real risk they face is that if they go off the reservation and tell too much politically incorrect truth, they will be shunned and driven out of journalism. A la Goldberg.

The difference between the attitude of an "objective" journalist and that of a "liberal" politician is the difference between the attitude of George Stephanopolis the Clinton political operative the day before he was hired to be a journalist, and the attitude of George Stephanopolis the "objective" journalist the day afterward.