The merging of new and old journalism

So.

All this time, our journalism class (and major newspapers and a plethora of websites) has been predicting the end of traditional journalism. We recognize the fact that "New Media," aka the online community of bloggers, reporters, and citizens who feed off one another and report news (and rumors) at startling speeds, is more convenient, faster, and, best of all, free.

The response to the crisis in Mumbai is an excellent example of citizen journalism taken to a whole new level, thanks to the instant connection the internet provides.

And while I'm fascinated and generally enthralled by this new media, I admit that I've been sad to see traditional print journalism begin to fade. Of course newspapers are far from eradicated, and I don't know that they will ever be so. But I do know that nearly all I hear about newspapers these days is that profits are falling, advertisements are falling, layoffs are rising, etc.

However, a recent article by redOrbit has made me think that perhaps the situation doesn't have to be this drastic. Perhaps our changing news media isn't all about the new, technologically advanced, interactive media versus the tried-and-true, honest and verified traditional print media.

Maybe the two complement each other.

RedOrbit reports that Arianna Huffington, founder of the Huffington Post (a website with the byword, "The Internet Newspaper: News Blogs Video Community) believes that new media brings out the best in traditional journalism.

Huffington claims that the transparency and proximity is what new media brings to the table of traditional journalism.

“The new cannot entirely replace the old nor produce the results of time-honored investigative journalism,” Huffington said.

She also said that bloggers who take to heart the tradition of fact-checking and having multiple sources are the ones who rise to the top in the online world.

And of course bloggers and 'citizen journalists' can (and often do) get the facts wrong, it is still true that the best ones, the ones who get the facts right, are the bloggers that everyone listens to.

So what does everyone think? Is this just a bunch of hopeful drivel, meant to placate old world journalists? Or could this combination of new media and traditional journalism work to form a type of journalism that is both transparent and accurate, both proximate and insightful, both interactive and resourceful?