You fight for well-researched and intelligent information, sans paywall or not. As do I. But we face an exponential growth of aggregated content. Unfortunately, the prolific Editor title is gradually turning into one of a ‘Content Curator’ who simply compiles, organizes and pushes out what he/she deems topical, important, or trending. :: Shudder :: I’d gladly handover my money to the Helen Thomas’s of the world who ask the tough questions than rely on algorithmic search results for news.

Beyond the journalism world, analysts are facing the same dilemma. GigaOM Pro seems to be doing a fine job so far in offering informed opinions and deeper dives at a relatively low rate. Wonder how they’ll fare later this year.

Thanks for making my blood boil (in a good way).

What’s also interesting about the great examples you cited, Meridith, is at which point do those become established, “old” media players? I think TechCrunch now is, as Arrington’s fast food post revealed.

I’d be the first to tell you that it’s great when we can get an amazing collection of information from citizens on Twitter (like in Iran), or that a YouTube video can sway votes in an election. But when it comes to holding government and powerbrokers accountable, the success and failures of mainstream media still matters a great deal. Access, name and money is important in forcing your way into high-level conversations. Despite my love of social and new media, I think a deep dive by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker matters more than someone who blogs on national security issues, but never talks to a general or an intelligence agent and just tees up reactions to things he sees on FoxNews.

I can think of at least three online-only publications that do great reporting and journalism that helps hold powerbrokers accountable: The Smoking Gun, Politico and in their own industry, TechCrunch.

Let’s give new/online media and the reporters who work for those organizations the credit they deserve!