(This is especially time-consuming when the comments are as insightful, not to mention literate, as they are here.)

One of the functions of traditional, one-way, journalism is to select and present information in a way that lets the “audience” pick out and absorb it quickly and efficiently.

Turning the news into a conversation is a great advance in many ways — but the resulting exponential increase in both verbiage and information demands a corresponding increase in the amount of time required of both journalists and readers.

As we all know, time is increasingly scarce and, so far, technology has mostly just allowed us to exchange more information more quickly, but has not offered similar help in the task of absorbing it and making sense of it.

This may be a limiting factor when it comes to using the wisdom of crowds (or communities) and also a continuing reason why there will continue to be an audience for skilled journalists who are good at separating wheat from chaff and presenting it clearly and concisely.

People embrace things that make their life better, and corporations will be forced to follow if they want to stay relevant. From a historical standpoint, this type of technological “leap forward” has happened to many industries and it is merely the media’s turn to go through this process. That perspective seems rarely mentioned by those still clinging to the way things were done as they wrestle with how to survive the transition period.

Wow. Almost the exact same reaction the Tablet Keepers had to the invention of moveable type.

I think that they are. (However, some of that examination is discovering that really good reporters are not necessarily professional journalists.)

Something else is also happening. The world is discovering that the professional “not so good” reporters can be replaced by blogging hacks. Folks who used to get paid for that work are understandably upset, but why should the rest of us care?

Experience matters. If you are going to lead a print-based operation you will need a lifetime of unique experiences in how that world works and Mr. Keller has that – in spades.

If you are going to lead an operation that is digital in nature – your leaders will need a much different background.
But, money talks and print is making the money.

The big picture for leadership, as I see it, is this.
When publishers start making as much dough from digital as they do from print – who will they put at the helm?
Will they hire an editor with a lifetime of digital experience or an editor with a lifetime of print-only experience?

Professional journalists should have nothing to fear from weblogs or other online media.

The challenge is to produce the best content for both print and online.

It shouldn’t be an either or situation.

Ok, so you say that a journalist takes the middle ground, because they are exposed to so many opinions and because they are so professional. Fine. Let’s assume that this is true (I wish!).

So what do they have to worry about then? If what they write is really high quality content, then they do not need to fear anybody – peers, experts, ‘the crowd’, their editor, anybody really.

So what is the problem with other people commenting?

The Internet enables a two way discussion on each individual article. This is very scary for many writers, not just journalists. From my personal perspective, I bet you that for each topic that I personally have written about in the past, there is at least one person in the world (and probably far more!) who actually know the subject better than I do. This means that when I allow comments on my articles, I expose myself to getting comments from more knowledgeable people. In the scientific research world, this is called: “peer review”. Peer review is a brilliant way to ensure the quality of publications is as high as possible.

However, with blogs, you have a different kind of ‘peer review’, let’s call it ‘crowd review’. Also: the review comes after you have published, not before. I think that most journalists and newspapers feel that ‘post publishing crowd review’ is beneath them. To paraphrase: “How dare these unprofessional people critique my work, what do they know!”

I think this is at the heart of all these discussions. Crowd review dimishes the authority of the journalists and the newspapers, but it probably increases the quality of articles.

I think this is where the battle lines are drawn. People like Jeff probably care more about the quality of journalism/ quality of articles whereas others care more about their authority.

In my view, it is not that hard to guess who will win in the long run…

Rant? Where? I’ve seen no rants in this comment section. Pointed comments, yes, but quite civil.

This dismissive comment is typical of the attitude of the dinosaur media. They do not understand what they’re up against. Nor do they want to.

I realize journalist ranks are thining — I’ve been in it nearly 30 years now — and I know what’s coming, what’s changing.

But I feel that the very good qualities that make a good reporter, that make a really good reporter a rare thing, aren’t being examined, written about. You are in the position to do so.

You have a tendency to reduce this business and your solutions to formula. It’s evident in your response to Keller; In parsing old statements it’s easy to miss new jumping off points and Keller offered you a very good one:

“It is the despair that derives from an inability to see the enduring value of the old and the promise of the new.”

I think Keller’s use of the word despair is perfect. It’s not the despair of someone who has given up hope, but the despair of people who feel that their value of what they have learned is being diminished.

Educated and engaged?

His readers seem to be *dis-engaging* more each day. The NYT stock price is dropping faster than a Jersey girl on prom night. Keller’s sure doing a wonderful job!

As for how *educated* his audience is…I must say that biggest dolts I know personally get up every morning and inhale NYT tripe.

Bloggers would hardly exist if *professional* journalists were faintly acquainted with the notion of objectivity.

You’re wasting your time with Bill Keller and his soulmates. He lives – and will die – in a world of command information. “That’s the way it is, December 4, 2007,” and suchlike. His entire working career was devoted to it. It represented tremendous power and his type will NEVER relinquish that power willingly.

I’m a lifelong conservative media watcher and I read your blog every day. Not because I agree with your politics, but because you have figured out that the day of “command information” is forever gone. Gone with the wind.