[Note: I think I may be saying something tired, obvious, and oft said. So what else is new?]

Thinking about Dan Gillmor’s talk today it seemed to me that the journalistic conniption we’re going through is going to be resolved in part by giving up on the notion of coverage. (I asked Dan about this afterwards; he hopes I’m wrong.)

The notion that a newspaper can “cover” the day’s events has always been a myth. Just ask Ethan about “coverage” of Africa in even the best US newspapers. In the post-paper world, we’re not going to be able to even pretend we’re achieving coverage. And even if citizen reporters around the world provide more information about more events than were dreamt of in the MSM’s philosophy it’ll be clear that we’re each reading a tiny slice based on personal and social interests. The concept of “coverage” doesn’t make sense in the post-paper world.

That’s scary, the way losing values and assumptions in serious transitions is scary. But I think it’s inevitable. (And that’s almost always an indication that I’m wrong.) [Tags: media journalism]

Categories: Uncategorized dw