Slate's Jack Shafer goes after L.A. Times media writer David Shaw for a column that gave the impression Shaw has read a lot of critical things about blogs, not not many actual blogs themselves.

Shaw was writing about whether bloggers deserved the same protection from 'shield laws' (which allow journalists to protect the identity of confidential sources) as "real" journalists.

An excerpt:

Without naming a specific offender—except Matt Drudge, who he acknowledges really isn't a blogger—Shaw generalizes about bloggers for 1,300 gassy words. He writes:

Many bloggers—not all, perhaps not even most—don't seem to worry much about being accurate. Or fair. They just want to get their opinions—and their "scoops"—out there as fast as they pop into their brains. One of the great advantages of the Internet, many Web lovers have told me, is that it's easy to correct an error there. You can do it instantly, as soon as the error is called to your attention, instead of having to wait until the next day's paper.

These nameless bloggers don't deserve the "same constitutional protections as traditional print and broadcast journalists," Shaw writes. Specifically, he opposes their right to use state shield laws to protect their confidential sources when subpoenaed, as are three bloggers who are facing down Apple Computer in a trade secret case.

What gave Shaw the impression that the law accords print and broadcast journalists the same rights? The "Equal Time Rule" for political candidates requires broadcasters to treat legally qualified candidates the same whenever it sells air time or gives it away (unless a waiver is granted, as in the presidential debates). It must also sell advertising at discount rates to political candidates. No such rules apply to print, which can't be forced to sell ads at all.

Also, until it was repealed 1987, the "Fairness Doctrine" forced all TV and radio broadcasters to present balanced and fair coverage of controversial issues. Again, no such requirement has ever been imposed on print journalists. Whatever First Amendment parity Shaw thinks broadcast journalists enjoy with print journalists, they've had to fight for every step of the way, and many of those "rights" could be legislated away tomorrow.

What compels Shaw to write such slapdash copy? Is he trying to get his opinions out there as fast they pop into his brain?