Dave Winer returns to this theme again, in a post looking at what the LA Times is doing. As usual, he makes some good points, and as usual, he is likely more right than wrong. And he is correct in looking at the current setup of the media and asking if it is worth saving. He says, maybe not. This is where we differ -- I hold a much more skeptical view of the potential of citizen journalism -- in theory it all seems so good, but in reality, there remains a vast chasm of research, credibility and impact of citizen journalists. Yes, as Dave notes,
In any case, I've laid out the roadmap quite a few times. When we look back in a few years, I'm totally sure this will have turned out to be the way it went. In ten years news will be gathered by all of us. The editorial decisions will be made collectively, and there will be people whose taste we trust who we will turn to to tell us which stories to pay attention to. Instead of three of these, there will be thousands if not tens of thousands. One for every political persuasion, one for every mood, demographic, age range, maybe even by geography. The role of gatekeeper will be distributed, as will the role of reporter. Very few people, if any, will earn a living doing this, much as most of us don't earn a living by cooking dinner, but we do it anyway, cause you gotta eat.
Love the analogy there in bold. But as dave has noted previously in regard to open source software, there is no glory in improving the UI of an existing project, or creating help files, which is why these things tend to take a lot longer than things which are considered cool. So in this world of citizen journalists, who covers the city council meetings? Who applies the resources to uncover what is really happening in Iraq and how the US government is (or is not) doing the right things? Today, it's the New York Times and their ilk. Tomorrow, who will it be?