As seen onFavicon for

Is journalism being replaced?

A look at a week's worth of reaction and conversation around a provocative blog post discussing the ways that journalism is being replaced by many other sites and services that don't "look" like journalism


  1. I'm late to this party, but the article by Stijn Debrouwere was brought to my attention by this mention from Adrian Holovaty, founder of Everyblock:
  2. The quote below from the article really struck me (and many others based on their Tweets of it):
  3. People just don’t value journalism as much as journalists do.
  4. I'd argue that people value journalism that adds value to their lives. If you are creating something unique that is compelling and interesting, people will value it. If you're trying to hang on to something because that the way it's always been done, without realizing that you are being disrupted, then you don't have a future. If you're doing the same thing as everyone else, going through the motions covering routine events and rewriting press releases, that doesn't add value.
  5. The word "journalism" itself is often problematic, in that it is tied strongly to an industry and vocation. Even the Knight Foundation, which funds many projects that look like journalism, has ditched the term for the broader word "information."
  6. There were some suggestions in the post for what news organizations could do about it to maintain relevance:
  7. What do you think? Comment below or on each of the the quotes above.
  8. Here's some more reaction to this story:
  9. I think the question isn't so much whether "journalism" is being replaced or not, but that some roles that journalism orgs used to fill with their work are being satisfied in different ways that aren't necessarily journalism. There's a difference of how the producers generally see their work as "journalism" and readers/users/etc see it as filling a certain role (learning about music, food, their community, etc).
  10. And, of course, I'm channeling Stijn with that response :)