Here are to articles, one on a challenge to the definition of what is it to be a journalist and the second about manipulated photos:WHO GETS TO DECIDE WHAT JOURNALISM IS?
A California court will soon decide whether bloggers have the same
legal protections as journalists under "shield" laws that protect reporters
from revealing their sources. Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Kurt
Opsahl, who represents two bloggers targeted by Apple for leaking
information about new company products, maintains that if the bloggers are
forced to give up their sources "the public will lose out on a vital outlet
for independent news, analysis, and commentary." An opposing view is offered
by University of Iowa law professor Randall Bezanson, who says that simply
expressing opinions to a tiny audience isn't journalism -- because if it
were "then I'm a journalist when I write a letter to my mother reporting on
what I'm doing. I don't think the free-press clause [of the U.S.
Constitution] was intended to extend its protections to letters to mothers
from sons." (USA Today 2 Feb 2005)


YOUR LYING EYES IN THE PHOTOSHOP AGE
Have the ethics of photojournalism been changed in some way by such
software as Adobe Photoshop, which allows easy manipulation of digital
photos? The National Press Photographers Association says it's wrong to
alter the content of a photograph "in any way that deceives the public," and
the director of photography at the Los Angeles Times director of photography
says, "If our readers can't count on honesty from us, I don't know what we
have left." Dartmouth computer science professor Hany Farid is working to
solve the problem of dishonest photographs by developing computer algorithms
that can detect when an image has been altered. But Farid says, "It's a bit
of an arms race. It's tamper and tamper protection, and we can already
predict who's going to win. We simply make it harder" for the average person
with the average amount of skill to get away with photographic deceptions.
(CSM/USA Today 2 Feb 2005)