Is the Internet making journalism better or worse? Thoughtful debate about the impact of the Internet on journalism, featuring opposing views from Jay Rosen and Nick Carr, moderated by Tom Standage at The Economist. It's an insightful exchange, with well-reasoned points from both debaters, as well as from the moderator and other participants.

it seems that mr rosen's views are based on some faith in the american consumer which is not necessarily illuminated in his remarks, altho some of them make some sense, for example that jounalism in quality doesn't have to depend on journalists in quantity. mr carr's views here, at least, seem to have greater basis in fact. the most important factor here is the fact of this debate appearing in a major news outlet.

There seem to be good points, but the format of this story on the web make it cumbersome to follow the discussion.

Great example of the power of the internet to expand and enhance traditional journalism. Highly relevant topic, with strong arguments from both sides. The format is excellent, allowing time for feedback and rebuttal. Mainstream journalists lament the decline in their numbers and resources, believing that they are the only ones capable of imparting truth and wisdom to the masses. However, the yeasty democratization of journalism on the internet proves them wrong. The comments section here, all by itself, makes a compelling case for the affirmative.

We're only at the beginning of a transistion to an on-line world. Together with the comment section, this is a very educative article.

Yes. Presents both sides and takes the time necessary to include many voices. This is a yes/no debate, but viewpoints within are in 360 degrees of observation. Very experienced group sharing their insights here.