i would bet that these people are as lao tze once wrote, 'brittle like death'.  and they will say stupid wrong shit to each other.  

instead, you could organize an online live virtual forum complete with videocams and invite 6-8 prominent bloggers to interact and discuss a variety of issues ranging from politics, blog regulation, monetization of blogs etc and any definitions you care...

if you manage to inspire observers with thoughtful new ideas of your own and energize your own base of loyal fellow bloggers, you will have created a new space in which to convey vision...

This is the answer I got from Tom Glad, after adding my name to the thousands of others asking for Mr. Aravosis's inclusion on the panel:

"Actually we haven't gotten thousands of requests for John Aravosis.  Not even a hundred.

We would like you to know that some of the reports on the Internet about this panel have been incomplete or inaccurate. It is not a panel about blogging, as some have written, it is a panel discussing the question, "Who is a reporter?" Some of the online reports were

based on an incomplete listing of panelists or a misunderstanding of the subject matter. We hope that you agree that the final list of panelists is diverse, balanced, and appropriate for the topic under discussion. We hope it includes representatives who share your views. Please feel free to check the NPC website (www.press.org) in a few days for any

additions."

If the final list of participants was fair, balanced, and diverse, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place, now would we?

The NPC has rewritten its blurb for the panel to reflect Gannon/Guckert's actual news value, which is the question of how he got into the White House on daily passes for two years in clear violation of the press office policy. I'd like to think I had a little to do with that, as the new wording reflects an email exchange I had with NPC vice president Jonathon Salant regarding GG. I asked him how GG is "newsworthy beyond the notoriety arising from his status as the first male prostitute in the press room and his ability to score 400 or so day passes" and here's his response, which is now reflected on the NPC site:

I don't know if Gannon blogs, but I don't believe that anyone who writes for a political party Web site is doing journalism.  Gannon is on the panel because of the notoriety he obtained by being able to score 400 or so White House day passes, which are supposed to be given only to legitimate journalists, and the fallout from that.

So keep the pressure on, politely, and I think Aravosis' chances are good. You might want to suggest a right-wing blogger as well.

I think the NPC response to the complaints registered by bloggers to this point is commendable, under the circumstances, and is promising in terms of destigmatizing bloggers in the eyes of some fairly influential institutional journalists.

I know that many people find this sort of panel discussion pointless, and they may well be so in terms of clarifying anything, but this exercise and the Brookings Institution one are part of a process of conditioning and educating the institutional press with regard to bloggers.

So existentially, it be a good thang. We're expanding their horizons beyond Wonkette and Andy Sullivan, and the pressure we're placing on them at once accentuates their fear of the blogging mob  and then dramatically relieves it when they find the representative bloggers capable of sound and civil discourse.

I think I'm done now ...

Dear National Press Club,

In your description of the members of your "Who is a Journalist?" panel you write:

"Jeff Gannon, formerly with conservative Web site Talon News, whose question at a presidential news conference focused

attention on how he got into the White House press corps"

While I question the inclusion of a fake journalist in the first place, it seems to me that if you are going to have someone known

for lying to advance himself (there is no way he could have gotten a White House pass if he had been truthful about his lack of

journalistic background, not to mention what his REAL profession was), you have to have someone on the panel who's

equipped to call him on his distortions.  Especially since you peg his inclusion to how his participation in White House press

conferences "focussed attention" on how he got there in the first place, you NEED to have one of the people who focussed that

attention (hint: it wasn't the "mainstream media").

The person most qualified to fit this role is John Aravosis of Americablog, who forced "respectable" publications (and even Fox

News) to cover the story with the revelations he unearthed about Mr. Gannon/Guckert.  I undersatnd Mr. Aravosis is available

and willing to participate.  I look forward to your including him on the panel.

Sincerely,

[Jim in Chicago]

I assure you this is a fight worth fighting. Just go look over at Romanesko's place where the vast majority of support is in our favor. We're not in this one alone. And we are probably going to win.

"bite their faces off!"