Do you? Really?
He argues that technology has reduced the cost of newsgathering, and that publishing is ‘as easy as a phonecall’. Quite right he is, until you begin to question the quality of what is produced. If something is published from a non reputable source, and instantly like you can get on the internet you could argue it was published as a spur of the moment. Putting together a newspaper takes time and money as we know, and at least with a paper you know its been researched for purpose, unlike the rise of citizen journalism. So yes production costs are reduced, but anyone who still wants to read quality news would be going somewhere to get it where it’s ‘newsgather-er’ gets paid.
Stating that specialist types of journalism, and in focus here reviews, are losing value I think is a bold statement to make. We all know Amazon offers book reviews and that you can find out how good the new Sting album is from iTunes, but you can’t expect quality. Anyone and everyone can update and comment on sites like these – so how correct can they be? Not to mention that the writer generally has no skill in the art of reviews. I’d take Paul into the ring on this one on the basis that the majority of people would go to reputable places for this kind of information.