But reporting from war zones and crime scenes and whatnot is something altogether different. If we don't have reporters in those situations, who should we believe? The military? The police? Should we expect bloggers to fill in the gap by jetting off to Syria? Should we expect bloggers to attend state government proceedings day after day, or should we expect our representatives to honestly and completely disclose what they discuss when none of us are present, or to properly notify us ahead of time before anything "interesting" is discussed?
Clearly, I'd rather see professional journalism in those roles. Bloggers and social media have important roles in the news industry as well, but I'm concerned by the thought of a future without professional journalism.
What about the written reports? The field journalists in Gaza, talking to the groups on the ground and giving first-hand accounts of the violence? That's important. Relying on cheap recording devices in the hands of locals is a terrible idea- they are the very people least likely to be impartial. To use the Gaza example, there would be thousands of recordings of Israeli strikes, but very few of missiles being launched the other way because no-one would want to record it. We'd end up with entirely biased coverage.
Who would be writing something like this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/24/world/middleeast/israel-ga...
?
Traditional media is not doing a good job of this. They can stick a reporter out in a hurricane or a war zone or the White House briefing room, but how often does that produce useful data? So often we get nothing but shallow, misleading information, or a dutiful transcription of statements from "both sides".
Professional journalism will survive, but hopefully it won't look the same.