Over at the Washington Post there is a piece written By Bruce W. Sanford and Bruce D. Brown, in which the writers express their views on why journalism needs to be saved. But is it ALL journalism that needs to be saved? Or just journalism on the Internet?

So I went to Wikipedia for a short description of what journalism is:

Journalism is the production of news reports such as newspapers, magazines, radio, television and the Internet. Journalists — be they writers, editors, photographers, broadcast presenters or producers — serve as the main purveyors of information and opinion in contemporary society. Source: Wikipedia.

But in the Washington Post article it is the Internet that is being attacked for what the writers state as:

The law of the Internet was written for the technology companies seeking to protect their growth in a once-fledgling medium, not for the journalism outlets that are now handicapped trying to survive there. Regulatory reform is needed because the playing field has become so uneven.

The Internet innovators that have thrived online enabled their own success as early as 1996 by securing immunity from defamation and other liability caused by user postings on their sites. Two years later, they persuaded Congress to add another exemption, this one for user postings that violate copyright law. These safe harbors have allowed companies from Yahoo to YouTube to prosper from the content they carry with little concern of being held accountable for it.

This is where I take exception to what the writers state. If they knew what the Internet was and what the rules were, than why did they come to the Internet? No one held a gun to the journalism community and forced them to come and play with the world. If they wanted to protect their kingdoms they should have stayed where they were.

Let me explain myself further. Journalism hasn’t attacked radio or television which provides better coverage and faster coverage than any printed material can. Because of the popularity of the Internet and the lack of understanding of what the Internet is, journalists are struggling to find their way. They cite old copyright laws that do not hold true on the Internet. They cite their own rules of fairness, that may work well in the print world, but will not work on the Internet.

The Internet is for the world and not just for the U.S. It is a communication media in which all earthlings can speak, share their thoughts and hopefully share their ideas with one another without interfernece from governmental regulation.

What do you think about this matter? Let me know.

Washington Post article