<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Credentialing bloggers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://prairieprogressive.com/2007/01/12/credentialing-bloggers/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://prairieprogressive.com/2007/01/12/credentialing-bloggers/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=credentialing-bloggers</link>
	<description>a blog about books, reading and other things that bring nuance to life</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:48:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Robert Cox</title>
		<link>http://prairieprogressive.com/2007/01/12/credentialing-bloggers/comment-page-1/#comment-593</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Cox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jan 2007 19:15:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prairieprogressive.com/?p=950#comment-593</guid>
		<description>You wrote &quot;While MBA should probably be commended for its efforts, part of the WaPo story, if accurate, disturbs me. It says MBAâ€™s president wants to help create &quot;an elite tier of bloggers.&#039;&quot;

Your qualifier &quot;if accurate&quot; suggest you have considered the possibility that this line from the WaPo story may be incorrect.  You would be right.  Of course we are NOT trying to create &quot;&quot;an elite tier of bloggers&quot;.  This does even make sense when you consider that there is ALREADY an elite tier of bloggers and that &quot;elite tier&quot; had nothing to do with the Media Bloggers Association other than that some of those &quot;elite tier&quot; bloggers are members of the MBA.

You can read all about this on my blog (Words in Edgewise) or on the MBA home page (mediabloggers.org), but the short version is that the exact OPPOSITE is the case.  We are trying to create opportunities that are open to ALL bloggers.

Think about it.  Many of the &quot;elite&quot; bloggers today do not need an association to help them gain access to something like a high profile federal trial.  Andrew Sullivan can gain access via Time magazine.  Glenn Reynolds via MSNBC.  Jeff Jarvis via The Guardian.

The people who need help with the type of access we created for the Libby Trial are the non-elites (if I can use that term).  And, in fact, most of the bloggers participating in our &quot;coverage&quot; of the Libby Trial fit this description.

What has confused some people, including folks at the WaPo, is that our policy at the MBA is that bloggers join after meeting the basic requirements described on our web site (see the &quot;Membership&quot; link).  We don&#039;t call them this but you can think of them as &quot;regular&quot; members of the MBA.

There are some opportunities we have developed where the third-party involved (such as the federal courts) has some additional requirements.  The members who are interested in any given opportunity are told of any additional requirements and can then choose whether or not to meet those requirements or not.  Some bloggers elect to meet the additional standards and participate.  Some don&#039;t.  The choice is entirely their own.

That is not CREATING AN ELITE-TIER.  It is the opposite of that.  Our policy is that ANY blogger who joins the MBA is eligible to meet the same standards as any other member, including those considered &quot;elite-tier&quot; bloggers, and gain access to any event or opportunity on an even footing.

In the case of the Libby Trial, every single MBA member that asked to participate either as a credentialed blogger or as contributor has been included.  To accomodate demand, we simply capped the number of days that any blogger could request (4 days) so that there were enough slots to go around based on a reasonable assumption (that the trial will last 6 weeks).

As any blogger who meets our fairly simple membership requirements can join the MBA, and as any member can participate in any opportunity, this is as egalitarian as it can be and far, far better than leaving opprtunities solely to those with inside connections such as the so-called &quot;elite-tier&quot; or &quot;A-list&quot; bloggers.

If you have some ideas on we could make the process even more open and more fair we would certainly welcome them.  Just know that we share your concerns and find the idea of creating elite-tiers of bloggers to be silly.

Robert Cox
President
Media Bloggers Association

PS, having skimmed through your blog I can tell you that you are precisely the type of serious-minded blogger that we would like to have as a member.  I could not find your name, and we do have a policy on anonymity, but I hope someday you will be able to publish under your own name and thus qualify for membership in the MBA.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You wrote &#8220;While MBA should probably be commended for its efforts, part of the WaPo story, if accurate, disturbs me. It says MBAâ€™s president wants to help create &#8220;an elite tier of bloggers.&#8217;&#8221;</p>
<p>Your qualifier &#8220;if accurate&#8221; suggest you have considered the possibility that this line from the WaPo story may be incorrect.  You would be right.  Of course we are NOT trying to create &#8220;&#8221;an elite tier of bloggers&#8221;.  This does even make sense when you consider that there is ALREADY an elite tier of bloggers and that &#8220;elite tier&#8221; had nothing to do with the Media Bloggers Association other than that some of those &#8220;elite tier&#8221; bloggers are members of the MBA.</p>
<p>You can read all about this on my blog (Words in Edgewise) or on the MBA home page (mediabloggers.org), but the short version is that the exact OPPOSITE is the case.  We are trying to create opportunities that are open to ALL bloggers.</p>
<p>Think about it.  Many of the &#8220;elite&#8221; bloggers today do not need an association to help them gain access to something like a high profile federal trial.  Andrew Sullivan can gain access via Time magazine.  Glenn Reynolds via MSNBC.  Jeff Jarvis via The Guardian.</p>
<p>The people who need help with the type of access we created for the Libby Trial are the non-elites (if I can use that term).  And, in fact, most of the bloggers participating in our &#8220;coverage&#8221; of the Libby Trial fit this description.</p>
<p>What has confused some people, including folks at the WaPo, is that our policy at the MBA is that bloggers join after meeting the basic requirements described on our web site (see the &#8220;Membership&#8221; link).  We don&#8217;t call them this but you can think of them as &#8220;regular&#8221; members of the MBA.</p>
<p>There are some opportunities we have developed where the third-party involved (such as the federal courts) has some additional requirements.  The members who are interested in any given opportunity are told of any additional requirements and can then choose whether or not to meet those requirements or not.  Some bloggers elect to meet the additional standards and participate.  Some don&#8217;t.  The choice is entirely their own.</p>
<p>That is not CREATING AN ELITE-TIER.  It is the opposite of that.  Our policy is that ANY blogger who joins the MBA is eligible to meet the same standards as any other member, including those considered &#8220;elite-tier&#8221; bloggers, and gain access to any event or opportunity on an even footing.</p>
<p>In the case of the Libby Trial, every single MBA member that asked to participate either as a credentialed blogger or as contributor has been included.  To accomodate demand, we simply capped the number of days that any blogger could request (4 days) so that there were enough slots to go around based on a reasonable assumption (that the trial will last 6 weeks).</p>
<p>As any blogger who meets our fairly simple membership requirements can join the MBA, and as any member can participate in any opportunity, this is as egalitarian as it can be and far, far better than leaving opprtunities solely to those with inside connections such as the so-called &#8220;elite-tier&#8221; or &#8220;A-list&#8221; bloggers.</p>
<p>If you have some ideas on we could make the process even more open and more fair we would certainly welcome them.  Just know that we share your concerns and find the idea of creating elite-tiers of bloggers to be silly.</p>
<p>Robert Cox<br />
President<br />
Media Bloggers Association</p>
<p>PS, having skimmed through your blog I can tell you that you are precisely the type of serious-minded blogger that we would like to have as a member.  I could not find your name, and we do have a policy on anonymity, but I hope someday you will be able to publish under your own name and thus qualify for membership in the MBA.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Melissa</title>
		<link>http://prairieprogressive.com/2007/01/12/credentialing-bloggers/comment-page-1/#comment-528</link>
		<dc:creator>Melissa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:51:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://prairieprogressive.com/?p=950#comment-528</guid>
		<description>Hello,

Just wanted to let you know I linked to your blog in my column on CBSNews.com today. Thanks!

If you want to take a look, here&#039;s the link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/16/blogophile/main2363422.shtml

Thanks,

Melissa</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello,</p>
<p>Just wanted to let you know I linked to your blog in my column on CBSNews.com today. Thanks!</p>
<p>If you want to take a look, here&#8217;s the link: <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/16/blogophile/main2363422.shtml" rel="nofollow">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/16/blogophile/main2363422.shtml</a></p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p>Melissa</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
