One thing is perfectly clear

The one clear thing in the chaos over journalism's future and definition: Thanks to the Internet, it's going to have to become much faster, more flexible and more interactive. And pronto.

Anyone who uses Twitter regularly for news and information, as opposed to mindless Twitterpation, can see that evolving on a daily basis. Yes, mistakes and hoaxes get made and passed on. But that's long been true in traditional journalism too. What makes all this new and different is that the gap between 'readers' and 'writers' is vanishing. Readers can comment instantly on what you write, challenging your thinking or your facts. Yes, it can be annoying, or in some cases verge on cyberstalking or character assasination. But it can also be enlightening.

Mistakes can be fixed almost instantly. Ideas can change. Progress can be made in real time, or very close to it.

Old-line journalists, especially editors (I think) are resistant to this new world. They liked the old one, where a few letters to the editor or public service announcements did the trick of interacting with the public. But now the public wants more interaction, and wants to help bake the journalistic cake, either by providing news and info, or by commenting, sometimes pretty caustically, on what others are reporting and writing.

Is that so bad? In blogs and many online forums, of course, much of this is old hat. But it's hitting mainstream journalism, and hard. How the mainstream media respond will determine who lives and who dies.

I'm old enough to be part of the old, and experimental enough to be part of the new. I think it's exciting, despite the 'creative destruction' currently wrecking much of the old journalistic infrastructure. It turns out that a format laid out for journalism in the 19th century needs major tweaking as the first decade of the 21st century heads downhill.

That's not so much of a surprise, is it?