Suggested Reading: "Are we living in a golden age for journalism? That depends on how you define gold"


There are many people at newspapers and other 'old media' who would have you believe that we are witnessing the death of journalism. What they mean, usually, is that the newspapers and other forms of traditional media are in trouble. At the same time we have access to more information from more parts of the world and a greater diversity of voices than ever before. After all, if it is true that journalism is dying then why are governments around the world, in dictatorships and democracies alike, working so hard to shut down whistleblowers, restrain and intimidate journalists and activists and censor information?

Today, Mathew Ingram at Gigaom takes a look at what we've gained, what we've lost, where things stand and how we define "journalism" in 2013:
Are we living in a new “golden age for journalism?” In the past few days, two prominent new-media players have tried to make the case that we are: first Henry Blodget, co-founder and CEO of Business Insider, made a comment to that effect on the CNN news program Reliable Sources — and then Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington used exactly the same phrase several days later, in an essay about Jeff Bezos acquiring the Washington Post.

To give credit where it is due, the Huffington Post founder has been arguing that we are in a golden age for some time — since at least 2009, in fact, when she spoke at Ithaca College and said: “the fact that newspapers are dying doesn’t mean that there’s no place for journalists.” In her latest post, she said “despite all the dire news about the state of the newspaper industry, we are in something of a golden age of journalism for news consumers. There’s no shortage of great journalism being done, and there’s no shortage of people hungering for it.”

Keep reading at Gigaom
Next Post »