“But why do we need anyone to tell us what’s important? We decide that. What’s important to you isn’t important to me. Why must we all share the same importance? Because we all shared the same newspaper. There is the wellspring of the myth: the press.”

i think there is something to be said for sharing the same newspaper. in today’s fine-grained internet coverage we all have our own private news source, tailored to our private needs or desires. the result is that we do not have a common experience of that aspect of life. to me that is a real loss.

The narcissism of the democratic blogger in full bloom.

And the leftist blogosphere is filled with this glee at job losses in print and elsewhere. They’re not progressives anyway. They’re libertarian narcissists. Ugh.

Interestingly, it’s wikinomics that hopefully will change that. Where is the communal wiki that breaks down government by department and measures its goals, effectiveness, delivery cost, along with suggestions to improve or abolish? I can envision a template now. Think tanks, government officials and citizens would all contribute. I’m surprised no think tank with a favorite government department hasn’t started one yet. I would.

Further, the wiki could then pressure government to share it’s measurements (which it should be doing now anyway) in public friendly formats. Measurement and feedback is one of the major issues with government today, and we have the technology and interest (see the political blogosphere) to do a great job of it, with lots of seed money to facilitate and administrate it. We might end up with 3 or 4 wikis on the same department (say, social security), from various viewpoints. But at least we’d have a way of stopping the data from moving.

And newspapers would crash.

“so to speak”?

Professionals are personally liable for “errors and omissions”. Is that what you’re talking about?

> standardized examination process to become licensed.

Nice in theory, but in reality, wouldn’t they become even more like lap-dogs than they already are?

http://gawker.com/5311055/white-house-press-corps-spent-the-fourth-of-july-hanging-out-with-obama-off-the-record

You seem to be verging on saying that there is nothing that is important to society only things that are important to individuals inasmuch as each person finds a thing relevant to one’s particular circumstance.

Yet news is a cultural production. It is the framing, prioritizing and narrativizing of events into a format that can be retold, debated and acted on by people acting socially.

It is plausible to interpret this post as an attempt to replace the narcissism of journalists with the solipsism of individuals. I assume such a conclusion would be a misinterpretation. Please confirm.

The debate about whether journalists are needed when information abounds will never go away. Working journalists could separate themselves from other information gatherers by becoming accredited like other professions, doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. In order to be able to call yourself a journalist, you’d need a combination of education/residency work and then pass a standardized examination process to become licensed. Quality of news gathering would go up, as would public trust, because a journalist could be “disbarred,” so to speak, when they underperform.

It was a successful tool for financial planners. Back when anyone could hang up a shingle and call themselves an FP it was hard for consumers to separate the good from the bad. It’s not a solution, but accreditation would help.

Bridget Brown
bridgetbrown.typepad.com/viewfinder

Jarvis doesn’t cheer. He yells “you idiots – you should be doing something profitable” and then rants about profitable things.

It’s unclear why Levine objects to Jarvis’ yelling and rants. These layoffs come from losses. Why is it wrong for Jarvis to suggest that journalists/newspapers do things that will keep them employed/in biz?

BTW – Does Jarvis actually have tenure?

Hard to imagine an adjunct professor who can’t stick to the discussion.