More and more often these days, I find myself getting into debates (read “arguments”) about whether or not e-journalism can sustain bad ass reporting in the way that some newspapers have for years. I want to believe that the internet doesn’t have to mean the death of all things well researched. But then I read something like Gary Kamiya’s “The Death of the News” on Salon.com and the doubt comes flooding back, the future of journalism feeling very uncertain all over again.
Shares in newspapers dropped an average of 83% and this, more than anything else, means that original reporting as we know it cannot continue. But do the changes that will undoubtedly result from this journalism e-shakeup have to mean that the news becomes a mountain of aggregated crap with nary an original quote to be found? Kamiya notes that the proposed absence of editors to guide stories and writers is catastrophic, will screw us hard if we’re looking to publish posts of value. So why not maintain some sort of editorial presence without employing a staff of three hundred? Journalists start as mere citizens and practice/are coached until they become wordsmithing authorities, so why can’t citizen journalists also benefit from on the job training at the hands of editors?