Where Internet kills the traditional media is in the lack of limits. Radio or TV will have a 2-minute summary, a newspaper will have a predetermined amount of space for it. This will tell you briefly What, Who, Where, When, How and perhaps even a little bit of Why, but cannot, by definition tell the whole story. If you are not interested, this is enough for you. If you are interested, or if you are suspicious of the source, you are left hanging and unsatisfied. But online, that short summary will provide a link to something that no other medium can afford to have: the entire transcript of the session, the entire video of the whole football game, full uncut interviews instead of brief quotes, further links to additional relevant information.It is precisely because one can compare the information as reported with the primary sources of that information that the traditional media have come to seem far less reliable. They would do better to be brutally agnostic regarding the issues of the day and make sure every side of every argument is thoroughly aired.
This piece makes much of the Huffington Post. I think the author should look into Pajamas Media as well. Also, why eliminate what the blogger calls "pseudoscience, HIV denialist, New Age woo-mongers"? Why not just hire those "real science/nature/medicine reporters" and let readers make up their own minds based on the soundness of argument, data, etc.? I still think that free and open and full discussion of all points of view - without rancor or insult - is the best way to arrive at some measure of truth. I am suspicious whenever anybody wants to restrict access to any point of view. (Which was why, when I was editor of my college newspaper, I wanted to invite Gus Hall amd George Lincoln Rockwell to both write about an incident involving the American Communist Party and the American Nazi Party that took place in Philadelphia. My Jesuit preceptors overruled me, which was their prerogative. But I think people would have seen through both.)