At least in the US, bloggers are accorded the same protection in keeping the identity of their sources.

In a 69-page ruling, the San Jose-based 6th District Court of Appeal broke new ground by concluding that bloggers and Web masters enjoy the same protections against divulging confidential sources as established media organizations. Civil liberties groups and journalism organizations have argued that online journalists need to protect the confidentiality of sources just as much as traditional media, such as the New York Times and CNN.

Journalists covet the ability to protect the identity of sources as a key to gathering news. The appeals court’s firm endorsement of journalistic shields for online media sets up what could be a crucial First Amendment showdown in the California Supreme Court if Apple continues to press its case.

…

Apple has argued that it is entitled to the identities of the bloggers’ sources in order to protect its trade secrets and punish anybody who stole and distributed them. A Santa Clara County judge sided with Apple last year, but the appeals court overturned that decision Friday.

The 6th District, in a unanimous three-justice ruling, rejected Apple’s argument that bloggers are not covered by California and federal laws protecting the confidentiality of journalists’ sources and should not be afforded the same protections as traditional news organizations.

“We decline the implicit invitation to embroil ourselves in questions of what constitutes `legitimate journalism,’ ” Justice Conrad Rushing wrote for the court. “The shield law is intended to protect the gathering and dissemination of news, and that is what petitioners did here. We can think of no workable test or principle that would distinguish `legitimate’ from `illegitimate’ news.”

“Any attempt by the courts to draw such a distinction would imperil a fundamental purpose of the First Amendment,” the justices added. [source]