Always Think.

I started to read John Paton’s dialogue, and then I stopped.

It’s hard to read, at least the first couple of pages: they’re scary. I read this and felt terrified, and then I kept reading and became enlightened.

Paton outlined the demise.

“Or worse still, mediocre journalists, wrapping themselves in the flag of long-form journalism, to deride the value of social media as a reporting tool. A tool they don’t understand or care to understand.”

Paton goes on to say that he cant believe the same mediocre journalists are complaining that 140 characters aren’t enough. He wishes he could go back and start in 140 character increments. He knows its a more efficient way to practice journalism, and that he could have done much more if he were limited to fewer words.

I hope I have a dream tonight where I see into a present time in which 140 character stories emerged as early as the 1990’s. Where would we be when it comes to getting/giving information? What kind of information would we value?

“Rome burns.” Paton said.

The newspaper model is totally broken, and we have to replace it.

Take the car I drive. After 200,000 miles, it doesn’t matter how much I love or care for my Acura Legend, it is on the decline, and it will die. It is also an it. There is no mending because cars aren’t people, and only organic things can come back from this kind of disease.

I could spend hundreds and thousands of dollars to repair my car as it ages, but eventually I will have to buy a new car, and what will I think of the money I spent trying to keep a broken car alive?

After it has burned to nothing, what is left?

Paton’s advice is to start over. He illustrates a future for the stubborn journalist, and for the enlightened journalist.

We are not the gate keepers of information anymore, but we are still journalists. It doesn’t matter if millions of people have a twitter account, it matters that we continue to expand on the real context of the story.

The only criticism I have of Paton’s words is that he doesn’t seem to see any negative side to the digital news revolution. I believe transparency is important, and I agree that we should look to those in the digital field to help us reinvent journalism as a business, but this revolution is still very new, and I am still quite afraid.

Just as easily as the internet killed print journalism, and given the increasingly rapid growth of all things digital, what is going to happen next?