Old media versus new media: discuss

The Guardian's editor, Alan Rusbridger, has shown enormous enthusiasm for new media. Just two days ago it was announced that the paper will put certain news on the web before it goes into print. But last night Rusbridger gave a lecture in which he mounted a robust defence of journalism and of printed newspapers. Some people may detect an inconsistency, though they would do well to read carefully what he said before jumping to conclusions. The point Rusbridger was making had to do more with the form of journalism rather than with the form of its transmission. He surely does not agree with Tony O'Reilly, for example (see post below), that we have got new media out of proportion. Instead, is he not warning that journalism as practised by newspapers is an activity that must be preserved whatever way we choose to deliver it? Content, real authoritative content for the public good, is best produced - at least, at present - by trained journalists working for print papers. Is that a reactionary view?