No one is above criticism, but the knock Jeff Jarvis took from Slate from Ron Rosenbaum missed the mark badly. It attempted to paint Jarvis as just another new media guru in pursuit of a buck it at the expense of others. Jarvis responded here. Many of Jeff Jarvis’s ideas are very much up for debate – I don’t think journalists are anywhere near as responsible over what’s happening as much as he does (shortsighted publishers, corporations, management, business and technology changes are *far* more to blame (read “The Innovator’s Dilema” – NOW)) and his tone can be brutal in the face of so much pain (so many jobs lost, so many families thrown into upheaval), but he’s willing to debate his ideas and seek out those of others. The author went personal and attempted to de-legitimize ongoing efforts that Jarvis has been leading that are important to journalism, like the recent conference on the future of news at CUNY or hosting so much relevant conversation on his blog. It’s a shame because argument is needed to address where we were, where we are going, what the consequences are. Blunt, honest talk. The Slate piece was a distraction from that.
Related:
Steve Outing: Do newspapers have 6 more months?
Nick Denton: A 2009 Internet Media Plan
Wired: Poll: Internet, Fox News Are Most Trusted News Sources
Silicon Alley Insider: Record Traffic Not Saving Financial News Sites
Metafilter: Can nonprofit news models save journalism?
Jeff Jarvis: Saving Journalism (and killing the press)
And, because this vid is so fit for the Daily Show, I just have to share it (vegetarians – do NOT click this):