This article is a thoroughgoing load of tosh, from start to finish.

Regrettably, it is entirely typical of the intellectual laziness that has given modern journalism such a bad name. It parrots what it believes is conventional wisdom, without a moment of reflection, or even a quizzical, slightly-raised eyebrow.

"The online revolution is comparably epochal in human culture, he argued, as transformative for the media of the late 20th and early 21st centuries as movable type was for the monks of medieval Europe who transcribed every book by hand."

How trite.

Where on Rusbridger's scale might the invention of telegraphy feature, one wonders. Or paper. Or satellite technology.

Such speculation is, of course, a complete waste of time, and acts as a convenient distraction from the key issue, which is "what is journalism's function" - regardless of the technology involved.

Contributing to the answer to this, are such assertions that "the role of the reader who is now increasingly also a producer of content."

Content, yes. But journalism?

That, surely is an important line of enquiry. If journalists see the self-important sound-bites that emanate from the general population as some form of competition to their profession, then - surely - that is a perfect description of the underlying problem?

Journalists have forgotten what their job entails, and hence, its importance.

(Or irrelevance of course. Either way, you need some form of definition of purpose before you can confidently decide which applies.)

"Once, and not so long ago, the production of news was the monopoly of cultural elites and rich men".

With that class-freighted attitude, it unlikely that the wood will emerge from the trees.

Would it not have been better journalism to point out that at least one function of journalism, back in the days when newspapers were the playthings of the rich, was to produce material that could be relied upon as an accurate record of events?

Sadly, journalism has become an arm of the entertainment industry. It says a great deal that two of the more trusted news sources in the US are delivered via the Comedy Channel.

it sounds familiour [i heard much the same thoughts on abc..bigideas]
so in searching for a link

came across this that sounds interesting
[relitive to the topic]
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/boyerlectures/

but here is the one i was thinking of
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2010/11/22/3073387.htm

full clip is here
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/browse/video_popup.htm?vidURL=/tv/bigideas/stories/2010/11/22/3073387-mediarss-full.xml&vidTitle=In Praise of Twitter&vidLength=Full

he had great things to say..[re twitter]
and has really given much thought to the topic
no doudt what he has to say has real relivance to this topic

while were at it
this is one of the best news sources
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/
currently on free to air

ok its from the same sources
and while i agree with many of the points of the respondants
i still recomend listening to the origonal source...and as that link id done..lets reply some of the other issues.

yu...points out the absurdity of sports...police reports and road accidents...or awards...movies..nonsense books..[hairy porter]..etc being news..and paul would needfully agree...[one could spend a lifetime...absorbing this pap..and never evolve mentally one degree]

it is amusing and sad...both at the same time

but real news..[fully reporting facts/and analisis
..like govts workings...and their many grants to the powers that be..should all be included in what we call journal-ism...

[likely pericules might agree...and while it would make dry rerading for many..the shame is..this stuff isnt read-illy avail-able on line in its totallity]..it forms an essential part of life..affects all living

i include in this all govt negotiations...trreaties..discussions they hold with each other in the never never...[even such things demed..in commercial in confidence..[lol]..as if secrecy ever made for good governance

i would extend into that news worthy...things like stock-holder metings...[not the pap..of the daily numbers...seing as that is only a means by which day traiters..make their numbers look like fact.

every important meting should be documented in summation..[not nessesarily in pictures..[the medus-cia [media]..is allready too cosy..with the servants of the elites]

Yuyutsu points to the problematical issue of how much one should read and be able to do in order to deal with the world. We do only have 24 hours in which to live. But the answer is not do nothing; as the Existentialists argued choice is inevitable with the failure to choose being a choice. One chooses and learns one’s way to insight.

One under God looks for truth – facts and analysis – as well as transparency from those most directly affecting life. This idea comes from a time when truth mattered.

The underlying notion of the article is that a move to direct publishing via the internet by all and sundry is epoch making fits to what ‘epoch making’ is defined as; “An event might be described as epoch-making if it has a great effect on the future” (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/epoch-making).

The notion that all can and will define what news is will certainly have a great effect on the future. The idea that all sources have equal legitimacy in spreading news has probably greater impact on the future – opinion is not truth.

The potential abandonment of truth is the most worrying aspect of this change.