I'm watching a great series narrated by Walter Cronkite called "Cronkite Remembers" which was made in 1997.  He described his experiences from his early years all the way to the current.

What I found most fascinating was his experiences with "new" technology from radio to computers.  For instance, as a young kid he used to be a paper boy where corner newsboys shouted out the latest headline with the infamous "Extra! Extra!" phrase.  Then came radio, which he admits used to be less about real news but more about feature stories at the time.  Radio, however, marked the end of paper boys with their 'breaking' news on the streetcorner and a dated newspaper.  Now you could get it live, sorta.

A great experience he shared was the invention of Television (TV) where it was first demonstrated at a technology fair.  Many years later he showed how TV news made it's mark where it helped decide the election between Nixon and Kennedy.  In the debate, viewers saw Nixon sweating and nervous whereas Kennedy appeared calm, cool, and relaxed.  Those who watched the debate on TV decided that Kennedy was the clear winner.  In contrast, radio listeners (who obviouslly didn't see a sweating and nervous Nixon), thought it was a draw.  This marked the end of radio as the new medium for journalists.

Back in 1997 when this documentary was created, the newspapers and TV news shows of the world had little to fear.  Although Walter talked about the computer age, he could not have seen what would happen in the 21st century where newspapers are going bankrupt and less people are watching traditional TV news programs.  Instead people are looking towards the internet for their news, at legit and non-legit websites and blogs.  This brings up two serious issues:  a lack of professional reporters and less true journalism.

In a way, our migration to the Internet as the new medium for journalism seems to mirror what Walter explained with the acceptance of radio which in it's early years had little to do with true reporting.  What is different now is that many major players in print have accepted, reluctantly, the digital medium.  They are faced with many amateur observers who post their views and news as they see it.  Some have called them "citizen journalists" but few can clearly take that title since their reporting clearly has an slant or biais to it and they have little to no journalist training or education.

The emergance of these amateur observers who are taking the place of professional reporters is of major concern.  In almost any conversation you are likely to hear your friends or family cite them as their news source, or take what they said as the truth and gospel.  There is no reporters notebooks used by these people nor are any citations checked and rechecked...it's just their view of what happened.  They are often manipulated by people and groups who aim to achieve their own goals by spreading what information they have heard.  It's almost like a endless urban legend that becomes legitamized because reputable news sources and reporters are nowhere to be found.

While the internet is the clear replacement, or supplement, to our print and television news sources, we must find a way to ensure professional journalists remain employed and able to do in-depth reporting that exceeds a text message length of 140 characters.  If we are content with short, useless, reporting then we are content with the corruption, lies, and hidden truths that are often uncovered by a professional free press which is under attack right now.

Will they survive?  I sure hope so and so should you.