Do you think bloggers should expect to be treated the same as traditional media outlets?
According to the story, a post on the blog ShapingYouth.org, a blog about the effects of marketing on children, criticized this recent Target advertisement:


Unfortunately we are unable to respond to your inquiry because Target does not participate with nontraditional media outlets.
This is Target's current PR practice, however the store did tell the Times they sometimes make an exception to the rule and are in the process of reviewing the policy.
In journalism class, we often debate this very question, and in my experience most of my peers are quite accepting of blogs. The argument in favor of bloggers is often made.
However, it seems many readers disagree.
Here are some thoughts from Times readers:
You're kidding, right? Just because someone has internet access doesn't make them a journalist.And another:
Bloggers should not be held in the same category as traditional news outlets. A blogger does not have the resources of a journalist. The editing process of a blogger is far less sophistocated than that of a journalist, and the blogger presumably lacks training in communications law and reporting. A traditional media journalist benefits from these resources and deserves more respect than a blogger.Some people believed blogs could only be considered equal to the traditional media if they followed their rules:
No, unless they are credentialed (i.e. NY Times reporter with a blog). Anyone can blog; not everyone is interested in honesty, integrity, accuracy, and the responsibilities persuant to reaching a mass audience. Those characteristics can even be in short supply amongst the mainstream media. Bloggers are people with electronic megaphones, no more, no less.
And:
Only if they identify themselves with their real name, location and if they abide by the written and unwritten rules journalism.
But citizen-journalism is growing and changing media, regardless if the general population is ready or not.