The idea of monetization is, of course, a key one. Why should the existing journalism models persist, however? Is it inherently good for individual media organizations to come to dominate a market? Shirkey describes how this happens with newspapers in many areas. I think the diversification of media sources is a good thing, particularly from a critical thinking perspective. I’m a fan of Neil Postman, and he pointed out years ago (in “Technopoly” and “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” among other places) that most people tend to accept and consume broadcast media very uncritically. That has needed to change for years. I think the diversity of voices and perspectives online can drive this need home more clearly than in the past, perhaps. We need more discussion about media literacy and media education.

We’re not going to be suffering from a shortage of information or information sources anytime in the foreseeable future. The big players, however, are no longer going to carry the weight and influence they did in the past. Among other things, this means and will mean they won’t be able to command the control over advertising dollars which they’ve historically enjoyed. That, on balance, is a great thing in my view.

Then there is the question of the reliability of our new news tools. At the moment, the tools we use for transmitting the news are mainstream media tools, like newspapers, as well as social networking tools.

Well may we wonder, though, what happens when there is a second dot-com bust, and a bunch of the social networks we rely on for information cease to function? How will we get our news then, when the old print sources no longer exist? It is akin to the local stores going out of business when Wal-Mart and K-Mart show up, only to leave the community impoverished when the big box stores depart for lack of profitability.

http://terry-freedman.org.uk/artman/publish/article_1499.php

And in this blog post called The Perils of Blogging, which takes a blogger to task and compares his ‘journalism’ unfavourably with that of ‘proper’ journalists:

http://blogs.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/politics/2009/04/the_perils_of_blogging.html

I’m growing more and more accustomed to reading most of my news on an iTouch or iPhone via Google Reader. One of the main things I love about it is I can star and share articles, and add my own comments to them (not on the respective sites, although I could do that, but I’m referencing the commenting built into Google Reader) as I read them. I have found the USA Today app for my iPhone far less desirable than Google Reader, since it is just passive / receive / read-only. I am growing use to this idea that I can “do” something with articles and information which I encounter online, including go back to those snippets to further reflect on or share them later.

I think this is going to be a generational thing. It is kind of like saying today, “How many people miss reading scrolls?” Not many folks would answer affirmatively. I think the same will be true of newspapers in a generation.

I embrace all the new mediums for sharing investigation and good writing. And yet I for one, would miss physical newspapers. Something about the relaxation of sitting there with the physical paper while eating breakfast just wouldn’t be the same. (even though I also eat while reading things on my laptop).

Sometimes I want a more “one dimensional, one at a time” experience when reading something–without the connectivity, interruption or distraction of being online. Other times I can’t wait to find the link to what I just read and share it. So it goes both ways.

Some of the most powerful “grass roots” journalism I have witnessed happened on Daily Kos during the campaigns. And yet, the investigative journalism that a newspaper like the Post can pull together is also impressive.

So many pros and cons to this issue, I guess, is the point.

It is a new world, and it will be fascinating to see how it evolves.

Thanks.