Who Gets the Right to Remain Silent?

Chicago Tribune Public Editor Don Wycliff expresses doubt about a proposed federal shield law for journalists protecting them from being compelled to cough up sources, arguing (rightly) that "if the government gives journalists the right to be exempt from the normal obligations of citizenship, the government, ultimately, will get to decide who is a journalist." The proposed legislation (here are the House and Senate versions) defines those covered under the protection as someone who works for:

print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other [information-disseminating media] … [or] a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical […] [or] radio or television broadcast station (or network of such stations), cable system, or satellite carrier, or a channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier; or … a news agency or wire service.

The question du jour—does this cover self-published webloggers? If so, then the government wouldn't be deciding who is and is not a journalist (because we all are!), and basically every citizen would have limited rights to clam up when hauled in front of a Grand Jury. Which, given the obnoxious, extra-constitutional over-reach of the Grand Jury system (which I wrote about regarding Barry Bonds), doesn't sound like a bad thing.