You are right when you say that quality is at risk when it comes to social media. It does provide a source of news, but since there are no standards, no guideliness or editorial processes then quality and accuracy will suffer. Most people who blog have no formal training in writing articles. They are not paid to write their blogs, manage facebook or twitter accounts. And yet they are becoming increasingly popular sources of information and opinion.

And the lines are blurring. You have invested years in honing your skills. You are paid for that and rightly so. Your profession will certainly outlive you and I. However as more journalists blog, and more bloggers report on events; the waters start to get very muddy.

Ouch! Some interesting points, but why do you let your arguments be shaped by such aggression towards “old media” and a fixation on this “journalism” elite class” and so on? Sure, there are bad points about old media, there’s plenty of gremlins in the new!
I joined a paper from school, worked my way up, have tried as best I can to learn from journalists and writers much better than myself and I am humble enough to know change is happening and that newspapers need to roll with it. It’s going to take a while to figure out how this all works – and I don’t think anyone in the so-called new media has got it all figured out either.
First of all, quick doesn’t automatically mean good. Sometimes people want a considered view, the very opposite of instant reaction.
I was filing from the match in Paris for a “traditional media outlet” and I’m guessing a few people read the Indo the next morning. I for one don’t feel threatened by the new media channels, like you I feel they are complimentary but I have to ask – while the speed of crowd shaping news and instant response is impressive, what does it actually amount to? Did people actually sit down and read the thousands of tweets posted within munutes of each other? Do they study carefully the online petitions? Apart from the fact it has been posted fast and offers an instant reaction, do people actually take seriously the many expletive ridden rants posted by a great deal of contributors with no shred of coherence, no thread of argument, reason or analysis?
Do people really have time to look for the good stuff online amid the absolute drivel and dross and endless streams of foul-mouthed abuse?
For the record, I was not aware while sitting attending the Stade de France or interviewing fans in Paris the day before, an investment on behalf of my newspaper to bring readers coverage of the match, of the presence of any “new media” colleagues. They might be able to vent their spleens within seconds of the game ending, but being there is something that readers still want their journalists to keep doing.

Ciaran

James, touché

The Fort Hood incident you mention is apalling. Let’s not forget that there is reckless journalism. Self-regulation hasn’t been working as we can see from the litany of libel actions we hear about on a regular basis. I’d put some stock into Michael Arrnington own words when he suggests that “the answer isn’t censorship (which won’t work), but rather in our social evolution catching up with the state of technology. We need to get back to a point as a society where – without thinking – we put our humanity before our ego.”

Julien, in the bigger scheme of things the outcome of a game of football is certainly trivial. Take this activity and turn it to something that really matters. Did the online protests about Iran make a difference? You could argue, no they didn’t as the reality didn’t change. But what it did do was give people a voice; a larger sphere of influence than they would previously of had. It provided platforms for individuals to come together and as a collective make a greater impact on those who could enact change.

John, you make a good point about it not being a social media mob. During this week there were plenty of French online and plenty of dissenters from the majority view. Everyone’s view was heard. Everyone had an equal opportunity to speak. Sure there will be points of view that you won’t agree with and there will be others that are just plain mad… but there is not filtering by the old powerhouses of the journalist and his editor. Frankly, I find that refreshing.

Newstalk drives listeners to the web to comment further and get involved in the debate. On the match night itself, RTE were to have an online discussion forum.

And many stations have now invited comment from email and now, twitter.

Piaras put it best when using the biological terms “ecosystem” and “symbiotic”. The only question is, who’s going to end up top of the food chain?

Lar