"Let the CPD and the others attached to the dead and dying model of print newspapers rant on about their self importance over blogs, they're howling into the wind, but acknowledging them and getting into the kiddie pool of pudding to wrestle with them distracts from moving journalism forward."
True, but: Mmm, pudding.
Wait, that's not it. It's this: Co-author Katharine Mieszkowski and I agree with RIRedinPA's basic point. We agreed when we started this here Future of Journalism Blog that we would focus on the future, not on the death throes of the newspaper biz. We are aspiring to that, not always living up to it. Because let's face it: Pudding.
But in the case of Cleveland, these people aren't just going through death throes, though they certainly are doing that. They are promoting a dangerous and, in my view, evil idea. They want to restrict the First Amendment, the very cornerstone of our democracy, to try -- and almost certainly fail -- to protect their industry's bottom line. It's just as wrong when some blowhard in a newsroom in Cleveland attacks the Constitution as when the president does it.
And the Plain Dealer people are not just rogues. Here's DailyFinance's Jeff Bercovici on more support for copyright restriction from the trade group the National Newspaper Network.
This is the industry that is claiming it needs to be saved because of its vital role as a watchdog on government abuse. We're sorry, these people are saying, we have to burn the Constitution in order to save it.
If we're going to have a Future of Journalism worth talking about, we've got to watch these watchdogs, because they're foaming at the mouth.