In the Obama case, the citizen journalist was not an opponent, but an active supporter of Obama, who recorded his presentation for her own use, but then realized that what she had was newsworthy, and overcame her own political preferences to release the recording. And what Obama said was not one wrong word, but a revealing statement of his beliefs that was consistent with what he had said in the past.

I suspect that Tomasky’s objection is not to a new type of citizen journalism, but to whose ox was gored in this case.

What is left is the question Tomasky repeated in the final paragraph: is it fair for someone who has access to a room in one capacity (a donor) to act in another capacity (a witness/transcriber/reporter/journalist) after leaving the room?

Clearly this question is hypothetical in this instance since, as you point out, the Obama Campaign’s event was not off the record and it had an expectation of coverage.

But what if it had not been? In an instance when one is invited to listen to something that is private and is told that it is so, surely one is bound not to repeat it, however newsworthy it might happen to be, and being a journalist — or calling oneself a journalist — is no license to violate that understanding and make such speech public.

That point does not fall under “rules for bloggers.” It falls under rules for human beings.

Did Mayhill Fowler blow his comments out of proportion? No, that was done by Michael Tomasky’s colleagues in the pro press. Her report was extremely restrained and it noted in it that she remained an Obama supporter. Did she go on for days and days about elitism? No, that was Tomasky’s colleagues in the pro press– and the other two candidates.

According to the Obama campaign, the event was not off-the-record, the Obama campaign said it expects these things to be recorded and posted, she was invited as a known blogger, and according to Tomasky she served the public interest.

What’s left? “She’s not a journalist!”