From the BBC:

A California judge said in a preliminary ruling that bloggers should not have the same protection afforded to journalists under US law. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), representing the sites, said it was disappointed with the ruling. The case's outcome could be far-reaching for bloggers and writers. The civil liberties group EFF had asked California's Superior court to stop Apple pursuing the blogs' sources in February...."What's at stake here is whether online and independent journalists will be granted the same rights as ones from traditional media," Ms Newitz said.

So if blogs are supposedly destined to be pervasive and make us all "citizen journalists", everyone gets freedom of the press and everything is privileged and beyond court review. That is...ummm...nuts. It may be that many people do not know how much information gets publicly exposed in a civil suit. Over the next decade Conrad Black may learn that lesson about 375 times. A constitutional privilege exempting a part of democratic society from that obligation to be open serves a specific purpose and is provided to the press, lawyers and judges and only a few others whose secret function is necessary to protect a free society. Extending it to anyone who can get a Blogger account and writer "reporter" of a business card in crayon would effectively create a tyranny of the individual. Nonsense.