...of accomplishing good things. I guess what I was trying to say (and I admit I wrote quickly after reading your essay) is that it's not the newspaper as a medium that I'm against, rather those corporations (Gannett, et al) that have transformed the great American newspaper into a simple commodity.

Did you read my comment about the fluff pieces about the local advertiser? That's what I'm against. I would be against that if it happened online.

Supporting grassroots journalism by supporting the current media system in place? That doesn't make sense to me. Grassroots is from the ground-up, not top down. Keeping good (rare), decent (uncommon) and bad (common) newspapers around does what to help journalism?

Print (and more specifically, the business model that supports it) is not the answer to saving journalism - and I truly believe journalism needs saving. Print has another five to ten years most likely - when e-paper hits the market in a big way it's not going to be the used as much anymore. (Oh, it'll still be around, but will pale in comparison to e-paper once they get that perfected...)

And even if print (as a medium) was the answer, propping up the current system (yes it has its good moments, but I see more flaws...) isn't the way to go, imho. I'd love for you to look at Muncie Free Press and what I've been able to do, as a single person, with very little resources.

I realize that I need more content, that I rely a lot on press releases and UGC. The thing is, as my revenue continues to increase, I will invest a lot of that money back into content for the site. I haven't worked with BSU's (great!) journalism department a lot yet because I can't pay the interns. Unlike most corporate newspapers, I think that's wrong.

So, sure, you can say old media (big business journalism) has done a lot in the past, but they've had a lot of resources! Most of us are doing this out of our own pockets, without health benefits, with very long hours, etc. I'm not complaining, though. Journalism is exciting again - to see the look on people's faces when I talk to them one on one to try to help solve their problem or get their story out. Or when I personally answer their emails, or take their phone calls, or point them to The Star Press when they're after information I don't have...

Wait until we start to build revenue streams that allow us to hire trained journalists and pay people for contributions. Then you can fairly ask where your support for journalism should go.

If you know a little about me, you know that I'm not against print altogether. There are plans for a free weekly print tabloid at MFP and some of my other properties. It will be a supplement to the website, though, not the other way around.

I see a print product as something that could help me in the short term (next five to ten years), and I'm working toward that goal. I'm not against print completely. It has its uses.

Granted, my case may be a little special, but having the corporate owned local newspaper tell me I can't mention my work for the community on their forums or website, that they won't write even a single editorial word about me, and now that I can't even pay them to advertise in their product ... is disheartening to say the least. This is the type of journalism you want me to support by subscribing? One that favors business decisions over the good of the community as a whole?

There are other examples too. Covering an advertiser's donut eating contest on the front page instead of covering our Senator at a Women's Health Fair earlier this year is one. Not to mention all the other groups and people I've been working with who are fed up with the quality and service of their local newspaper.

Newspapers are good, of course, because they are spending *some* resources still on covering the daily news. And every once in a while they'll do something particularly good - here in Indiana about a decade ago (?) a collection of newspapers did a great series on Open Record laws in our state. Great stuff. I don't see as much of that anymore, though. And what I do see (hiring a stringer to do fluff pieces about advertisers), well, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I apologize if my words aren't eloquent and witty. I'm out here on the front lines, though, in the trenches as it were, trying to develop another model so that journalism (the true journalism that both you and I love) survives. It's vital to the American way of life and if you look at the corporations' track record, for all the good they do, very often they forget about their responsibility (as journalists) to the American public.

I just re-read your comment. You seem to be saying that only newspapers can do good journalism? If I had the resources, you can believe I'd be putting them to use hiring people to do those types of stories (rather than the fluff pieces...) But no, I can't compete with the vast history of newspapers (I'm one person and have been at it less than three years), but I can say that I do think there needs to be a new business model, one that spreads the power out to a lot of different people rather than a handful of large corporations.

Why isn't there room for two or three companies or individuals to cover a city? If there were more competition, it would be better for the community, the citizens. Competition spurs innovation (something sorely lacking at newspapers) and benefits journalism as a whole. Supporting the current state of media (a near monopoly!) will do nothing to help spur innovation.

I don't know. I think I'm rambling now. Your academic knowledge/writing is a bit intimidating. I know I'd lose a debate. Heh. I hope I got my point across a little clearer, though. If not, just ask.

I do appreciate you taking the time to comment here at J-Hope.