His sole argument for the demise of journalism off-line appears to be its current state of inherent lawlessness and the un-ethical nature that has developed in what was once a style practiced by writers who really did believe in truth and justice.

Rightfully he laments the passing of journalism. And rightfully he rallies against falsehoods and the irresponsible gimmickry featuring in so much journalistic content today. Sadly, these are all characteristics shared by ‘journalism’ online. In fact, journals online are written by many of the same people who once wrote off-line, and online journal keepers have even greater issues in ethical practice to deal with than paper based journalists did. Even the most ethically minded journalist online knows that the content he or she produces or the stories he or she covers change at a phenomenal rate, and that most online journal ‘facts’ are buried by questionable information and a tendency toward opinion oriented postings.

I suspect quality journalism online died before it even had a chance to draw a breath. I cannot call most of what passes for journalism online journalism at all. A lot of it appears to be entirely fictitious. Journalism has not bloomed online, instead, in my opinion, it has been dealt its final blow and is now even more prone to manipulation, deliberately planted misinformation, vicious assaults on other peoples’ character, and segregation through gated subscription to content that most news consumers don’t even realise exists, than print media has ever been before.