Shirky's right about it all except for one thing -- the we need "journalism."<br /><br /> <br /><br /> We don't -- or rather we don't need the sort of journalism that is traditional, the sort that mediates and filters, the sort that beings with "Experts say..."<br /><br /> <br /><br /> The experts are already on the web, speaking directly to the consumer. I don't need Gretchen Morgensen of the times to tell me about the mortgage market--I can go to Calculated Risk. I don't need David Leonhardt to tell me about the economy: I can go to Nourel Roubini. Craigslist and Google News may severely injured the newspaper and the network news program, but its the incompentence/mendacity of its practitioners -- the Jayson Blairs, the Dan Rathers -- who wield the death blow.
posted by Karl K at 2009-03-19 22:32:59 ![]()
I thought it was funny that the whole conversation practically ran like a series of blog or forum thread comments, with everything from trolling and baiting over personal issues, and going way off topic and then veering back at the end. <br /><br />
posted by dave at 2009-03-21 09:54:42 ![]()
@karl k...<br /><br /> <br /><br /> this is such a naive take. journalism can obviously mean a lot of things, but in its best sense is infinitely more complicated than retreading primary documents. the journalist=lier trope is a product of the early internet age. methinks we will live to regret it--especially as the internet morphs into the ultimate product-dispensing trashbin that we can't escape...
posted by jSon at 2009-03-22 09:33:26 ![]()

