http://www.melissaclouthier.com/2009/03/17/the-left-wing-conspiracy-more-on-the-transparency-hypocrites/

However, I think there will still need to be some sort of centralized news organization with trained, full-time reporters, with an emphasis on “reader reporters.” Some of the better reader-submitted work would be more prominently displayed or given a higher profile (this concept already exists to an extent on many news sites). I see the future as more of a partnership than as one or the other. A main news outlet heavily supplemented with readers’ input.

I’m still skeptical about the quality of work an independent blogger could do. When one’s livelihood depends on gathering news, I tend to think the reader gets more developed, thought-out material. Also, along with your time is money argument, generally the better info would come from someone who has the time to invest in the process, not a person who fits it in to their schedule.

It also seems a little silly to think that people wouldn’t slant the news when covering it on their own. They may not have big advertisers to please, but every individual has their own biases built in. Moreover, people say they want objectivity, but many times read or write viewpoints that reflect and validate their own beliefs. Objectivity is relative, but it’s something journalists with a boss probably think about more than if it was just a hobby.

In theory, if there were enough different sides to an issue out there, it might make the picture more complete, but not necessarily clearer.

It’s not, for example, that I can’t go interview a politician (I have, btw) and report it, it’s that my time is money and so must make choices. That is, my entire job isn’t reporting. It’s an economics thing. Time is money.

I do write for pay and it is more original. And really, when I’m live-blogging a debate, how exactly is my reporting different than a reporter’s?

And here’s another thing: The web is very egalitarian. If my writing stinks, no one will read it. And if my point of view is wrong, people will complain….and they do. Newspapers are getting more responsive online this way.

Here’s why they’ll die, though. Rather than picking news stories and delivering them neutrally, people are finding out that the papers aren’t reporting some news at all because it doesn’t serve a political purpose. That ticks people off. When they see it online, they wonder what else is being hidden.

Ultimately, I think bloggers and journalists will end up in the same soup–doing similar work. Heck, we already do.

I enjoyed your post, and agree that citizen journalism will likely become a much bigger part of the media than it is now.

But I wonder the level of good this can bring. It’s interesting reading blogs and comment posts, yet sometimes there’s so much mindless drivel it can be hard to dig out what’s really relevant. It’s a little overwhelming at times. Since there are no editors for these kinds of things, credibility is in question much of the time, at least for me.

And if major newspapers do die out, what will bloggers have to write about? God forbid some of them actually tried to call someone with City Council or a football coach. I’m sure some would pitch in with the heavy lifting, but generally I don’t think most people would want to deal with it. It’s easier to copy and paste a block of text of the real story and make a few points while enjoying a cup of coffee, all within about half an hour.

I really wish I wasn’t skeptical, and I’m a little biased since I work for a major daily myself , though definitely not a newspaper apologist. When thinking about the new ways we’ll receive information, I always go back to what sports columnist Norman Chad wrote some months back. He responded to a reader’s letter about the comparison between bloggers and real reporters with something to the effect of, “Just because you can cook a steak on a George Foreman Grill doesn’t mean you’re a chef.”