Dan Gillmor has pointed to two very interesting pieces that talk about issues raised on this blog last week.
Jay Rosen and Jeff Jarvis discuss the ins and outs – it certainly brings together all the arguments put forward on this blog. Go read them.
I wanted to articulate this myself, but Jay has done a better job than I could have done. I have also received requests from the US do put the link back up. Decisions, decisions.
Jeff Jarvis picks out the crux of Jay’s argument well, of protectionist journalism, Jay decries:
You shouldn’t do it, because if you keep doing it you will soon be talking about “the masses” and what they will swallow. Soon after that you will be talking about what the masses should be fed. I don’t trust anyone’s argument–left, right, middle, fringe–when it assumes that others (the big audience, the mass public, the voters overall) will react with less nuance, intelligence, or critical thought than the writer and the writer’s friends. To me it’s a warning sign: anti-democratic attitude here in evidence.
Jeff then concludes, pretty much thinking along the same lines as myself:
This is an extreme example of the revolution journalism is facing: When the people can see the news for themselves and judge for themselves, what is the role of journalists’ news judgment? Are we merely to become a pipeline for source material? Are we merely fellow citizens, like our readers, with opinions of our own? Do we still think we know more (and better) than the audience or do we admit that the citizens know more we do?