As for Jarvis's claim…I cannot speak for him, but I believe he was talking about journalism in general. Yes, journalists are paid to report, and rarely have a choice of which platform they utilize. I think above all else, he wanted to raise awareness of a new social media platform, and to deny it completely can likely result in journalistic suicide. He urges traditional media corporations to embrace and adapt to the new wave of social media…which I think you will agree…will continue to grow and revolutionize the flow of information.

Your point about large-scale investigations is extremely valid. It's hard to see how a blogger or small team of bloggers can produce reports that can compete with a NY Times that has millions of dollars designated towards a single cause as you say. With that said, I still feel as though journalists and media organizations are far better off utilizing social media (i.e. blog posts, social networks, etc.) as opposed to print.

I do believe many traditional media journalists (40 and up) do not give the credit that quality bloggers deserve. I said in the post that these individuals fail to understand that these bloggers are passionate and knowledgeable about their particular topic…and in many cases write, read, and talk about that topic more so than a particular journalist. I never insulted the work of journalist…I simply made a point that many “old school” journalists feel like a blogging is completely illegitimate, when in fact, it is just the opposite.

Bottom line is this…journalists have had a great big barrier in front of them and their readers for a long time. Now that the internet and social media in particular has broken that down, they feel threatened, and I don't blame them. A certain theme will remain constant no matter what, and that is, the good writers (albeit journalists or bloggers) will succeed, and the bozos will ultimately fade away. Social media has just supplied us with a more efficient and effective way to communicate.

That distinction aside. It's unclear to me how new media platforms can finance the slow, investigative work that old media organizations pay people to do. To cite one recent example, the NY Times dug through various records and found that 90% of the retirees from the Long Island Railroad were also getting disability payments. This led to an ongoing investigation by the railroad as well as the state attorney general. Gathering that information requires significant investment, at least in terms of time (how much time do NY Times journalists spend tracking down false leads about possible corruption in Albany?). To mention another example, NY Times spends $3 million a year on their Baghdad bureau. That bureau produces good news that is incredibly hard to obtain and undoubtedly, both the public and bloggers gain from that on-the-ground reporting (how many news bloggers benefit from having NY Times publish stories on Iraq? I'd say nearly all of them). How new media can replace that coverage is hard for me to imagine.

Lastly, you say old journalists have an inferiority complex vis-a-vis bloggers and and then in the next sentence suggest that bloggers have more expertise than journalists. It's hypocritical to suggest journalists are wrong to criticize bloggers for their lack of ability in producing news content and then to criticize journalists for their lack of ability in producing good news content.

You catch the Jeff Jarvis / Ron Rosenbaum spat this week? It gets personal:
http://www.slate.com/id/2204372/
http://www.buzzmachine.com/2008/11/12/there-the...