I have actually used RSS feeds for awhile now. I have set both apple and digg RSS feeds to download into apple mail. The feature is great for me. It allows me to view new things that are on the sites without actually going to them. Then once I see if there is something I would actually like to see the whole story of then I click on the link to go to the actual page. I feel that they are a way better option then going to veiw every page to see if they have updated the site with anything new and interesting, especially on our slow sattelite internet connection here in Coffman Cove. I feel that Feeds are something that I have a very good grasp on, as they are a tool that I love to take advantage of and use often. They are pretty simple to use, and I have no unresolved questions about the topic.

What do you think? Are bloggers and journalists the same, and should they have the same rights? Should bloggers have the same protection that a journalist has? I think that although the two are much alike there is a difference. A blogger could be anyone off the road, as a journalist is someone who works for a news reporting agency. Although the two may write about the same topics, the journalist has the right to go to special events and interveiws to get information about the topic. The journalist also has an extra sheild protection, preventing them from having to share where they received information for their news reports. Considering all these things about bloggers and journalists I have to lean towards believing that a blogger should remain to not have the same rights as a journalist. If the United States were to allow bloggers to be protected in the same way that a journalist is, this would give anyone on the street the right to say, “I am a blogger, I don’t have to share where I recieved my information.” Which, I believe would soon become a bigger and bigger issue. It would give any blogger the right to write anything about anyone, true or not and be covered. Within politics this would have the biggest impacts.
Consider a few scenarios:
Scenario One: a reporter for a major newspaper reports, using anonymous sources, on a falsified government document. When the government agency attempts to force him to reveal his source, he refuses… and is protected by a “shield law” that he does not have to reveal those sources. A blogger breaks the exact same story at the exact same time. Should he receive the same protection? Would your answer change if you found out the blogger had been running a news and politics blog for years? What if she’d never posted a news story before but stumbled onto this one?
I think that in this case the blogger should still not be covered under the same protection. Although the blogger has been doing the job for years they are not a journalist. The journalist I believe deserves the protection as their stories are more publicized, the person could be in danger if they some information was to be shared about who told them about the falsified government document. However, no one is going to listen to the blogger as much about who they heard from.
Scenario Two: A blogger applies to receive press credentials so he can get into a political event. He is denied, because he’s “not a journalist,” even though many reporters are allowed in who have fewer readers than the blogger. Is that fair? Would it matter if, instead of news bloggers and newspaper reporters the same situation arose at a fashion show with a writer for a fashion magazine and a fashion blogger?
I believe this is a fair incident. If a everyone who wanted to go to one of these events was allowed to present themselves as a blogger to be able to go, then everyone in the United States would be able to start a blog and apply to go to the event as a blogger. I believe the same would also be fair in the fashion show event. There has to be some kind of limitations to who qualifies to be a journalist/reporter or anyone and everyone would have to be given the same priveleges as a journalist.

So, this past week I have been really excited about getting to coach elementary basketball. I love basketball, and I love working with little kids. However, this morning I was informed that my supervisor for AmeriCorps is going around telling everyone in town that I am not allowed to work for anyone other than AmeriCorps. What a peice off bullshit. Its totally not true. What I do on my personal time is my personal time for one, and so she should be going and telling people what I can and can’t do on my personal time excpecially without talking to me about it first. Hello? So yeah, apparently she went and told our lead teacher that I can’t coach basketball becuase I am not allowed to work. Which I was ok with, I was like ok well I could just go help out with it. But then the teacher walked up to me and was like well if you can’t work then you can go coach the kids, and I will come in every once and awhile and help and get paid for it. Now why would I coach for free while someone else is getting paid for it. That makes no since at all. So anyways least to say that didnt start my day off well. Then I went home, and come to find out she had also told my sister that I couldnt work for them at all becuase I wasn’t allowed to work. Now telling my sister I am not allowed to do anything for her is crossing the line. If I want to do something for my sister God I am going to do it. Its my sister for crying out loud. So who knows who else that she told I couldn’t go work for them. It pisses me off. Anyways, then after that I get an email from her telling me what I should be doing she tells me to do stuff that I am already doing. Apparently she is paying no damn attention. When she is the one that set up for me to be in school 4 hours a day. So yeah least to say I am pissed off today. I am thinking about telling AmeriCorps where to shove there 40 hour a week job. But I don’t know what to do. What would you do?