Why there MIGHT always be reporters, Part 2
OK, maybe the only place where size counts is in sumo wrestling. After reading a reporter’s account of what it took to cover the Tour de France, however, I was reminded of the size of the platform it takes for some stories to get told.
It’s not that newpaper reporters are typically smarter or harder working or whatever than bloggers and others in the non-MSM. Sometimes it just takes lots of patience and other resources to make a story happen…the kind of stuff the MSM supports and others don’t…at least not to the same extent.
For how much longer? That’s another post.
If you take reporters as ‘instant historians’, there will always be a need for them…history always needs interpretation, and that is their role. As the world and events have got more complicated, people need information to be interpreted to make it intelligible and in context. Raw data isn’t what the general public wants (or is likley to want)in the forseeable future. Of course, reporters become an endangered species if they interpret raw facts into something that it isn’t. Bloggers, etc can put their own ‘spin’ on things, but are unlikely ever to have the credibility of news organisations…or indeed as you say, the resources
1