Yet another misapplication of the Bill of Rights

Every time someone suggests that reporters are not above the law, the press responds with a self-righteous invocation of the First Amendment full of J-school nonsense like this:

The press simply cannot perform its intended role if its sources of information - particularly information about the government - are cut off.

Kindly point me to the section of the Constitution which created "the press" and stated its intended role? With all due respect to Justice Stewart, he's shouldn't confuse the writings of Thomas Jefferson with the Constitution. This bilge that the press is something more than any other business enterprise has been propagandized for too long, largely because the press and academia promote it and there hasn't been anyone able to talk back. Stewart's dictum is misguided. The reason the First Amendment grants freedom of the press is the same as the reason it grants freedom of speech and religion--not to establish the press as some hyper-citizen watchdog on the government, but to protect the right of people to criticize the government. When did you ever hear of some private individual allowed to claim a legal privilege against revealing his sources for a statement? Me neither.

This "intended role" is about as well-established as the right to pollute the environment. It's a good example of the Big Lie. There is nothing sacrosanct about someone's choice of reporting as a vocation. Legally, there is nothing to distinguish bloggers from reporters like Dan Rather, and I can't imagine any court telling a blogger he didn't have to reveal his sources because it would prevent him from fulfilling his intended role in society.