How are they going to decide who gets blogging access and who doesn’t? Which people in an elected democracy get more access to politicians than other, and who decides that?

This would be a welcome development, though as an idea it has some shortcomings.

One would think that people who will have most success with it are the people closest to regular journalists – who are there often enough to build up a relationship with some parliamentarians. This is natural enough, but it still makes it something of an insiders’ club.

Would it not actually be better to end the archaic,cliquey lobby system full stop, rather than have a few favoured bloggers co-opted into a structure that is deficient in very many aspects. The Phillis review which reported last year found the system to be “a barrier to openness”. Inviting in a select handful of bloggers isn’t going to change that.

Oh god, they’re going to call it the “blobby” now aren’t they… *despairs*

I hope not

Many bloggers post irrelevant, opinionated tosh. They don’t deserve Parliamentary passes. Passes are given to journalists; ie. those who can be held accountable for what they write. That doesn’t apply to bloggers – hence the generally poor standard of political blogging.

Ian:

Well some bloggers hold themselves accountable by being transparent with who they are are what they are about but alas, some don’t, as is their right. I would feel uncomfortable with anonymous access.

“Many bloggers post irrelevant, opinionated tosh. They don’t deserve Parliamentary passes. Passes are given to journalists; ie. those who can be held accountable for what they write. That doesn’t apply to bloggers – hence the generally poor standard of political blogging”

This is a joke right?

Most of what passes for so called political journalism in this country is rubbish. Most of it is partisan to fit the needs of the newspaper the journalist works for.

If you don’t like blogging why are you here?

I agree…as long as I get one.

Many bloggers post irrelevant, opinionated tosh. They don’t deserve Parliamentary passes. Passes are given to journalists; ie. those who can be held accountable for what they write. That doesn’t apply to bloggers – hence the generally poor standard of political blogging.
So your a journalist Ian.
So journalists don’t write irrelevant and opinionated tosh. I can’t think of political journo that doesn’t peddle the same predictable garbage.
Hold accountable by who.
The general public, the corrupt owner of the newspaper or the politician they have a “relationship” with.
What you regret is the fact that the monopoly of writing political comments is now dead. The same right wing consensus that blighted this country for 100 years is over.

Not sure how much this will really help. I’ve not had a lobby pass but I have had a Commons one. Unless you’re actually going to be working the ground full time pretty much all it really does for you is gives you access to the bars and to the journalists in their own offices.

Cheap beer is nice of course and seeing tomorrow’s newspapers being written has its advantages if you want to influence them (which is why I had a pass) but for a blogger? Reporting on the place?

I seriously don’t know about that.

One blog that does have such a pass is LobbyDog:

http://lobbydog.thisisnottingham.co.uk/

Nice blog written by a nice bloke. But not convinced that it’s entirely the sort of groundbreaking thing that people seem to think might come from bloggers having Lobby Passes. (Yes, I know that’s Nottingham, but he’s the bloke in the lobby in Westminster for a number of regional papers.)

Anyway, if you’re in and around Westminster enough to make use of such a pass it’s pretty simple to get yourself taken in anyway.

Journalists (print media, TV ness, radio etc) are held accountable. There are codes of conduct. They are far, far from perfect. But it is a profession. Blogging is not a profession. There are no codes of conduct. Any moron with a computer and internet access can call himself a ‘blogger’ and get people to read what he has to say. Look at the likes of guido fawkes, and yes, this site sometimes. Appalling articles, rude and obscene even (though that’s more guido fawkes). Blogs are by their very nature rantings conducted by partisan minded people. Fair enough if thats what you want to read, but informative they are largely not.

Let’s start with some examples of politically balanced blogs, without the obscenity and angry-man-tapping-the-keyboard articles that define blogs. Please give me some examples. I might not agree with the editorials in the guardian (some are too leftist for me) but it is a quality paper with well researched and well written articles. Ditto for the times or telegraph. Same does not apply to blogs.

Fundamentally I agree with you Ian, the key point you raise for me being the idea of it not being a profession and the sheer lack of accountability and transparency.

“Journalists (print media, TV ness, radio etc) are held accountable. There are codes of conduct. They are far, far from perfect. But it is a profession.”
So it is prostitution but they work harder. Been a profession doesn’t mean that your not going to be corrupt, your not going to rant or do any other of the things that you accuse bloggers of carrying out. As for code of conduct. I doubt any jouno as adhered to any code of conduct. All they are is paid lackies to megalomaniacs like Murdoch, Black and Maxwell.