Online Journalism Quotes

I worked at Salon.com way back when they started, and there's just unmeasurable value to distributing words online, too, but I still get my news from the newspaper in the morning.

Everyone's drunk on the term 'blog.'

The newspaper industry when I came along in the mid-70s was rich and powerful and growing and hungry for material and open to new people. None of that is true in the newspaper industry today. Print in general is pretty rugged. The good thing is that you can gain a foothold on the Internet because everybody has access to it, even things like Twitter - I mean, you can get a reputation for being funny pretty quickly on Twitter, on a blog, that kind of thing.

Is there Gawker ethics? I mean, I guess there's Gawker ethics. It's a dangerous thing to talk about.

I am going to pick on 'Huffington Post.' A lot of its content is great. They are doing a lot of original content now, but historically, a lot of what they did was aggregation. Newspapers don't want to become that, and yet 'Huffington Post' is incredibly popular. It's incredibly successful.

Online journalism has always had a sourcing problem. From using unverified 'anonymous tips' to repeating whatever rumor or speculation people are chattering about, the general ethic is, 'We'll publish just about anything.'

In the age of social media, everyone's a newspaper columnist, exaggerating what they think and feel.

Anything remotely resembling news media is going to continue to migrate online until very little or none of it is produced on dead trees.

Information is moving - you know, nightly news is one way, of course, but it's also moving through the blogosphere and through the Internets.

I just get my news from the Internet.

Somebody has to pay our editors, writers, journalists, designers, developers, and all the other specialists whose passion and tears go into every chunk of worthwhile web content.

Twitter and Facebook are brilliant tools, the journalistic uses of which are still being plumbed. They are great for disseminating interesting material. They are useful for gathering information, including from places that are inaccessible.

The web has introduced a competitive, and some might argue hostile, landscape for long, in-depth, resource-intensive journalism.

At The Huffington Post, we thought of the front page as a one-stop shop for everything you'd need in news.

The lazy blogosphere has given up on journalism and now trolls Twitter for their on-the-record in-depth articles.

I'm proud to call myself a Mashable alumnus.

What we did with 'AllThingsD', though, was very different. We weren't taking a newspaper and putting it on the web; we were creating a digital native product, and we did it inside of a very old, stuffy newspaper company at the time.

It's a different world because of the Internet and bloggers. Now, every editor is concerned about speed because every minute counts. Speed is more important than content. Whoever gets a review out first becomes the authority.

What the Web has never figured out is how to pay for reporting, which, with the collapse of print newspapers, is in desperately short supply, and without which even the most prolific commenters will someday run out of things to say.

The key question facing those of us working in the media (old and new) is whether we embrace and adapt to the radical changes brought about by the Internet or pretend that we can somehow hop into a journalistic Way Back Machine and return to a past that no longer exists and can't be resurrected. There is no question that, as the industry moves forward and we figure out the new rules of the road, there will be - and needs to be - a great deal of experimentation with new revenue models.

The inexorable rise of the Internet and the citizen journalist presents us all with challenges for the future.

I am dumbfounded that there hasn't been a crackdown with the libel and slander laws on some of these would-be writers and reporters on the Internet.

I began as a writer and started blogging in 2001, first on politics, anonymously.

Surrendering to jargon is a sign of journalism's dismal lack of self-confidence in the optimized age of content-management systems.

It bothers me when people, say, you know, write for, you know, a web publication and get paid little or nothing or, you know, expecting to, like, read the best newspapers in the world and not pay a cent for it. Those newspapers need money in order to operate.