This post is difficult to write because, as I’ll elaborate on later, it will be my last one at the PoliGazette for the foreseeable future.

Last week Joe Gandelman this piece about the declining fortunes of newspapers, the dominant news media form of the 20th century. These once-great institutions are dying, their life’s blood - ad money - cut off and their circulation declining. Paper, too often out-of-date before it’s read, is no match for the immediacy of the Net. Conversely, bloggers often hit the wall, cut down by the perfect storm combination of love of writing, major time commitments, and lack of financial rewards. Such is the world of new media.

This is inevitable as blogs like this one, which are always fresh and offer readers a participatory experience that newspapers - even those that allow on-line comments, cannot match - increase their readership. Hard-copy media is out-hustled and the hustlers themselves burn out.

As Gandelman notes, the transition toward new media forms will not be without cost to the news-consuming community:

Newspapers still remain the biggest source of fact-based reporting. Most blogs are essentially extended op-ed pages. Online websites are increasing in popularity. But many on-line websites are fueled and linked to content anchored in newspapers and magazine’s. And blogs: how many blogs could exist for ONE DAY without linking to, quoting and discussing something written by a staffer of a newspaper, network or magazine?

As commentators, bloggers like me take the existence of news sources for granted, even as our work chips away at the reader and viewer base that allow these organizations to flourish. Where will news come from in an era in which papers like the Washington Post are cutting away not excess fat but the muscular tissue that makes their product, the paper, worth the reading?

Dave Winer and other new media advocates believe that citizen journalism can and will replace much of what currently falls within the purview of media professionals. Moreover, Dave thinks that ethically we’ll do a better job than employers of major news corporations who can, in some cases, effectively be bought by advertisers:

Only now, after much pushback, are the pros getting the idea that we take what we do seriously. I think bloggers are doing more to bring integrity back to journalism than the pros are.

New media is a return to a purist perspective on the matter of news reporting:

Based on emails I’d say that many professional journalists, maybe even most, got into journalism for the same reason people start weblogs. Hoping to make a difference. To have an intellectual life. To be where the action is. Idealism.

For many, becoming a reporter was a very positive thing — but being a reporter meant understanding that the publisher must make money. Compromise. Conflicts. In the heart of such a reporter, the Web was a rallying point, it was a return to their beginning, it called up their inner true believer. But the Web created a conundrum. Try as hard as you can, it’s very hard to make a buck selling the written word.

That’s what we’re seeing as more and more newspapers are being forced to compete on-line with more agile competitors. Declining revenues and value-added content created by unpaid writers like yours truly are making their lives difficult. And the pros resent it.

Michael Grant is one of these. In his view, the term “citizen journalist” is an oxymoron. Doesn’t exist. Can’t exist.

Where journalism was, in the pre-Internet world, Americans now find macramé journalism, a hobby practiced by a huge number of Americans on the Internet and in the blogosphere. This new, fun way of knotting information has done what the founding Americans hoped could never be done.

…

Many citizens now publishing on the Internet write very well, and argue convincingly, but without working knowledge of journalism definitions, values, and principles, and commitment to those principles, they are not journalists.

…

It is scary now, witnessing hordes of amateurs calling themselves citizen journalists, and taking their work seriously, and even scarier that traditional publishers go along with it. Scary not because of an abuse of press power, that the First Amendment has managed to protect for more than 200 years, but of a draining of it. Without that power, democracy starts to die, too.

Of course it’s highly, highly dubious to claim that the Founding Fathers would recoil at the thought of free speech rights being expanded in a nearly frictionless environment. Consider one Thomas Paine. Would the United States even have come into existence if not for the work of this citizen/rebel/journalist?

Jay Rosen is more up to speed on what’s happening in the media world than Mr. Grant and he knows that everyday more people are realizing that information is power and that they can make their voices heard more clearly than ever before. Ten years ago our only feedback mechanism was a letter to the editors of a local/national newspaper. Editors there controlled everything about what information made it to the reading public. That is no longer the case.

Rosen says:

Look, media people. We are still perfectly content to listen to our radios while driving, sit passively in the darkness of the local multiplex, watch TV while motionless and glassy-eyed in bed, and read silently to ourselves as we always have.

Should we attend the theatre, we are unlikely to storm the stage for purposes of putting on our own production. We feel there is nothing wrong with old style, one-way, top-down media consumption. Big Media pleasures will not be denied us. You provide them, we’ll consume them and you can have yourselves a nice little business.

But we’re not on your clock any more. Tom Curley, CEO of the Associated Press, has explained this to his people. “The users are deciding what the point of their engagement will be — what application, what device, what time, what place.”

…

You don’t own the press, which is now divided into pro and amateur zones. You don’t control production on the new platform, which isn’t one-way. There’s a new balance of power between you and us.

That new balance applies both to consumption - web, mobile, and free - and to creation, as in we are now both free and able to produce our own content that, unlike in past decades, can be disseminated to large audiences without passing through the gateway of the media moguls.

That’s how Mayhill Fowler’s recent report exposing the nasty comments Bill Clinton made about Vanity Fair reporting Todd Purdum came to light - she got the story on her own, ran with it, and now it’s been read by hundreds of thousands of people, maybe more. Fowler also brought us the story of Barack Obama’s “Bitter-gate” comments, so she’s no flash in the pan. Like any reporter she’s out there actively looking for a story and getting them.

Mark Murphy from MSNBC took a shot at Mayhill’s ethics in response, claiming that she didn’t identify herself as a reporter and primed Clinton’s response by saying she didn’t like Purdum’s article.

That’s as may be. The effect, however, is indisputable: Both President Clinton and Barack Obama made the remarks that she publicized and more truth than usual was revealed as a result of her efforts.

Rosen writing about Fowler and Bitter-gate:

It is important to underline that at no point has the Obama campaign contested her right to report on what happened or questioned the accuracy of her account. James Rainey of the LA Times told me he asked them and they declined.

It’s not an easy world to live in as a public figure, as both Clinton and Obama found out recently. But neither should it be surprising to them. There’s a whole posse’s worth of new accountability sheriffs in town and whether you call us bloggers, citizen journalists, or macrame artists, as Michael Grant does, we are creating a new way of acquiring and disbursing information that doesn’t depend on the editorial process.

All of this comes at a cost. Grant is primarily concerned with the accuracy of reporting in the new model:

A macramé journalist, meanwhile, can join the field with an ISP connection and a blog account. Much of their work is very good, but at its best, it is commentary, not journalism. At its worst, it is the same as an avalanche of unsigned letters to the editor. Assigning such blather the stature of “citizen journalism” is inappropriate and dangerous.

…

For almost 300 years, that documentation and verification has been the cornerstone of America’s press. Investigative reporters won’t publish information without triple verification, and then only after a phone call offering the opportunity to verify or deny to the story’s subject.

Does my quoting him automatically put me in the category of macrame journalist? It must, if consistency follows. Yet his voice was the source of the quote and he deserves credit for it.

As Joe Gandelman noted, it’s there that the real problem with citizen journalism lies - in the constant and reliable production of accurate and timely material.

Readers of this web site are used to a certain standard of editorializing that, for the most part, tracks pretty closely around the rational and truthful. While this is far from universal on the Net, it’s fair to say that the self-policing nature of the web’s publish-and-link model exposes most frauds in relatively short order. It’s possible to fool some of the people some of the time, but at a web site viewed by thousands of people, lies don’t stand up.

The question of quantity of content is a different matter. As you undoubtedly noticed, the PoliGazette struggled to keep pace with the flow of events while Michael was out of the country, which is where my leaving comes into play.

Having one’s voice heard amid the noise is a wonderful, empowering thing. But it takes time, brain power, and dedication. It’s work, and worth doing, despite what some pro journalists think, for if nothing else we keep an eye on the media, watching the watchers. But work nonetheless and usually without adequate remuneration.

Being quick and complete on a story is important, as is ensuring a constant flow of new material to the site. This can be both consuming and stressful, as the Times recently reported on, and the competition is fierce. The beast has to be fed to grow, as we say around here.

For me, it’s time to step back and focus on other priorities for a while. Other bloggers have done the same, some of whom returned and some who did not. It’s a question of value, what we give and what we get, and every writer and situation is different. For me, the month Michael was gone was one of constant struggle with work and family and the blog - time management issues all - and balance was nowhere in sight. So I’ve got to let it go for now.

But that’s one of the things that is so cool about the Net: when one person steps out of the picture another will step in to fill the void, probably with a different perspective, and the world keeps turning, slightly askew for a time, and then we adjust.

So, readers, a fond adieu. Most of you come here to read Michael’s work and I encourage you to keep supporting his efforts to grow the PoliGazette to the next level. I know I’ll be rooting for him from the sidelines - for a while at least.