Roy Greenslade makes an interesting comment in his blog on the Guardian.
Greenslade argues that journalism will only survive if pro journalists and citizen bloggers join together.
The newspapers-versus-bloggers argument is entirely false. It is not only not a case of us (good) versus them (bad), it is like comparing apples with pears.
Greenslade is reacting to a Huffington Post column by Johann Hari stating newspapers are the year’s most underrated phenomenon. Hari writes
Here’s a weird paradox. If you include the Internet, more people are reading quality newspapers than ever before. Yet newspapers are – as the bankruptcy of the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune shows – dying. We don’t just want it all, we want it free. Does it matter? As good as some bloggers are, they don’t have the army of foreign correspondents or in-depth investigative teams that are necessary to make sense of the world. If print newspapers – for all their manifest flaws and corporate biases – die, there will be an aching hole where newsgathering used to be. Newspapers: buy them or lose them.
Ultimately, I agree and disagree with Greenslade. I do think if newspapers completely die out, newsgathering won’t be what it once was. There does need to be participation between bloggers and journalists, but better yet, maybe journalists should just be bloggers. Then bloggers will have all the skills of a professional journalism minus the cost of printing a paper.
I don’t think citizen journalism is the future. That could lead to very inaccurate, biased news. There are, of course, places and times when that type of journalism is good. But overall, I think the world needs journalists. We just have to find a way to use print journalists in this wi-fi world of ours.
Image from flickr.com.