What would we blog, critique or discuss were it not for traditional media? What does "traditional" media even mean? Is it a thing (newspapers, radio, TV) or something much larger and intangible?
Media is communication, medium through which stories can be told that may or may not affect us, interest us or impact our lives in ways we may never comprehend. Increasingly these medium have become two way, allowing for a discussion (in the form of tweets, blogs ...etc) which far from replacing traditional forms of media have encouraged media professionals, particularly journalists, to become better at what they do.
Going back to my original question, one which emerged from the recent New York Times documentary, I believe there is a place for every type of media though the scale of distribution will certainly shift. This is not because Bloggers are taking away journalists jobs but simply because more and ore people are joining the discussion, outweighing the influence of media moghuls and ensuring the balance is very much tipped towards mass media. Yes jobs are being lost, but many of these are a result of emerging technology or economic pressures. Bloggers will always need something to blog about, if no one is in Sana'a to report on popular uprisings then no one will talk about it. If the pictures don't turn up on the 10 o'clock news, the story is much slower to emerge. Wikileaks may have used Youtube to break the first of their "media" scoops, then opted to embrace print media to channel the second on a much larger and more effective scale.
