My fear is that the public simply doesn’t care (or care to distinguish between a credible source and a crackpot). As people have grown more comfortable with Wikipedia, for example, the questions about the site’s authors have dwindled. It is a slippery slope to further blurring between journalism and communications.

If we look at the evening TV news, perhaps we get a glimpse of what might play out. The national news broadcasts used to be filled with hard news and in-depth analysis. We all know how it has slid downhill from there. On one hand, the news shows have been dumbed down, but on the other, this is what people want.

Should we stand in the way if the public determines that it wants its “news” in 140-character drips?

Obviously, people are starting to trust bloggers as sources of information. Some very vocal people prefer it this way, and like to think the bloggers are an ‘everyman’ just like them, and are therefore more trustworthy sources of information. As more people join this occupation, more spammers and hacks will take advantage of this trust. Eventually, people will get angry.

I think it’ll get pretty bad for awhile. Then, like in all things, I believe there will be a backlash and people will seek out trustworthy sources once again.

I’d like to think that more nonprofits will rise in the journalism field. I think (perhaps too optimistically) that there are people that love journalism simply because they like to investigate and inform. These are the people that will continue to do so, despite all obstacles.

Over the past few weeks, the conversation is largely about how the channels for delivering the message are changing, and how will journalism survive, etc. The general tone of the conversation is one of excitement for the new ways that PR professionals can get their word out, and one of apprehension that the use of these channels will kill journalism as we know it.

Personally, I’m excited to see where it goes. As a student about to graduate into the industry, yes, having the traditional PR background is absolutely required. But, being well-versed in the new channels and new way of delivering messages is essential as well. At Weber Shandwick Chicago, where I just got brought on-board, they are using social media in new ways to interact with their publics, which is in turn, creating better stories for journalists to write. They’ve actually created a department that deals with this exclusively, and are creating the same department in their LA office.

I think the new channels for media are inevitable. We know that the technologies of social media can change overnight. The story is still the most important part. Why do people (clients) matter? How do we tell their story? If PR people continue to stay grounded to that concept, we should be fine.

As far as the journalists being put out of work, I think the journalists that embrace the change and seek out opportunities to spread their message through these new channels are the ones that will keep journalism alive. They will be the ones who will still have jobs when the old-school journalists who resist change are let go.

Are the lines between real news and blogger news blurring? Yes, they have been for quite some time. But the real question, I think, is whether or not the blurring is a bad thing. If we prepare ourselves for what is coming, or ::gasp:: think outside the box and think ahead, we should have no fear for what the future brings to journalism and public relations.

Very timely post. I recently gave a presentation to journalism students at GWU, and we dived into a lengthy discussion about the future of journalism and public relations. The professor asked me this very question: do you see the intermediary disappearing as more people go online to get news content?

My answer is that while I hope this doesn’t happen, we’re already seeing this shift as companies engage directly with consumers on platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. Currently, there is a balance between using journalists as the middle-man and communicating directly with target audiences. However, as newspapers continue to take a beating, I think we will see a shift to this “journo-relations” concept.

Your last sentence is what nails it, though. Will people even care about - or notice- the change, and more importantly, what will we, as communications professionals, do to ease the transition and make people care?