5 ms·

Fine. If noone wants to say it, I will. In my opinion, Journalism is a less important profession. Why? Because it depends on the movers. Arrington's job would

Fine. If noone wants to say it, I will. In my opinion, Journalism is a less important profession. Why? Because it depends on the movers. Arrington's job would not exist if there weren't people out starting companies. Journalism cannot exist in a vacuum. Also, I would argue that journalism (as we know it) does not create value. Rather, it is an arbitrageur of information.

krschultz 18y ago
Agreed. Journalism in the Watergate sense is extremely important. "Journalism" in the "I blog about Twitter" sense is basically worthless.
mtw 18y ago
I disagree. Journalism fuels newspapers. And newspapers/blog in themselves are essential. Without Techcrunch or ArsTechnica, you might have not been aware of "startups" at all. You wouldn't know about startup failures or successes, and might have less motivation to build a startup. Also, there comes a time where you were looking for employees and those are the only destinations where you could get the word out. I have a friend that says that small towns have a symbiotic relationships with their local newspapers. With those, people cannot know what's going on in the community, they wouldn't be able to post small ads, economy would slow down by lack of information. So yes, journalism might appear as "easy" but they are the blood of society.
- steveplace 18y ago
  That wasn't the point. The original question was whether the journalism industry is less valuable than other industries. And I said yes because they aren't first movers; they are reactionary. Sending a PR release to Ars is valuable but it's not like you wouldn't have a business if it didn't exist. They may enhance value, but they certainly don't create any on their own. I have a friend that says that small towns have a symbiotic relationships with their local newspapers. Absolutely. Newspapers are helpful in society. But the example you use just has the paper as a medium of information exchange. The front of a church door served the same purpose a couple centuries ago. As information becomes more fluid through other technologies, the newspaper will fall into irrelevance.

krschultz 18y ago

Agreed. Journalism in the Watergate sense is extremely important. "Journalism" in the "I blog about Twitter" sense is basically worthless.

mtw 18y ago

I disagree. Journalism fuels newspapers. And newspapers/blog in themselves are essential. Without Techcrunch or ArsTechnica, you might have not been aware of "startups" at all. You wouldn't know about startup failures or successes, and might have less motivation to build a startup. Also, there comes a time where you were looking for employees and those are the only destinations where you could get the word out. I have a friend that says that small towns have a symbiotic relationships with their local newspapers. With those, people cannot know what's going on in the community, they wouldn't be able to post small ads, economy would slow down by lack of information. So yes, journalism might appear as "easy" but they are the blood of society.

steveplace 18y ago
That wasn't the point. The original question was whether the journalism industry is less valuable than other industries. And I said yes because they aren't first movers; they are reactionary. Sending a PR release to Ars is valuable but it's not like you wouldn't have a business if it didn't exist. They may enhance value, but they certainly don't create any on their own. I have a friend that says that small towns have a symbiotic relationships with their local newspapers. Absolutely. Newspapers are helpful in society. But the example you use just has the paper as a medium of information exchange. The front of a church door served the same purpose a couple centuries ago. As information becomes more fluid through other technologies, the newspaper will fall into irrelevance.