And more importantly, whom can, or should, you trust?

And by the way, where’s this whole newspaper/Internet thing going anyway?

SFgate.com columnist Mark Morford has a great article reviewing what the top tech gurus are saying about old media and the future. It also addresses the above points. I’ve quoted it extensively on the jump, but check out the whole article.

Quote: Look, I’m all for media upheaval and revolution. I’m all for seeing what will emerge from the ashes of print, should it die out completely. But there’s a reason the traditional newsroom model has lasted 150 years, that professional journalism is still considered so vital to a healthy democracy, that it’s still a profession requiring years of training and education, and not just a casual hobby you engage in when you’re a little drunk and you’ve read a few McLuhan books and you don’t get enough sex so hey, might as well mosey over to that Planning Commission meeting and scribble some notes.

There’s also a reason that saying “I read it on XYZ blog, so it must be true” still carries little weight in a serious discussion, whereas, “I read it in the Washington Post,” gives you instant authority. Instant cred. Even today. Especially today. Has that authority unraveled and weakened in the wake of the Net and news-as-entertainment? Absolutely. Do we have anything better? Not yet. Not by a long shot.

All these provocateur pundits are right about one thing: something new and hopefully wonderful might emerge out of the ashes of the death of print. It is indeed a great time for experimentation, new thinking, even tentative optimism.

But it’s also enormously sad and troubling. Because even if you say you still want great journalism, serious investigative reporting, and lots of news expertise, the Internet and its various pundits have all led us to believe that no one is willing to actually pay for it. And they never will be. Let’s hope they’re very, very wrong.

I’ve got a link to his column on my blogroll, and like almost every other current/former journalist, I click it every day.

There’s an interesting story on NPR about Romenesko and a look at the future of newspapers  here.

Of note:  For many readers who love newspapers, it’s a sad state of affairs. If you clicked on Romenesko — as the blog is popularly known — over the past few days, here is essentially what you saw: “Washington Post profit falls 77% in fourth quarter,” “Will Rupert Murdoch end up owning the New York Times and Los Angeles Times?” “Hearst says it will sell or close the San Francisco Chronicle if cuts aren’t made in a hurry,” “Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News owner files for bankruptcy protection.” And that’s only a few of the entries.

Sprinkled among the list of sick-and-shut-in big-city newspapers were notices of others that are ailing and failing, such as the 150-year-old Rocky Mountain News, which published its last issue Friday. And an announcement that the American Society of Newspaper Editors has canceled its 2009 convention in April because of stress within the industry. And a slew of raging debates about whether newspapers can be saved, where news will come from in the future and how it will be delivered.

Not a title anyone would want, but Romenesko has basically become the obit writer for newspapers, and by that, I mean the actual newspaper.

So, who’s depressed?