Online Journalism News

Good article except for one thing - I in no way said that there was a threat to journalists from the internet. It would be a bit daft seeing as I've been an online journalist since 1998. There seem to be a lot of people thinking that Web 2.0 is the web/internet - it's not. The NUJ has around 400 members who identify themselves as working in new media, we're currently defending our members in AOL as robustly as those in newspapers or elsewhere. So, to be clear, my article is not about the internet, it's about how the ideas of Web 2.0 are being used by some to justify attacks on journalistic quality and professionalism.

I appreciate that you did not use that exact phrase and perhaps I should have been more careful in doing so. However, I think we are splitting hairs. 'Web 2.0 is not the web/internet' but it is, as you say in your article, 'interactive use of the internet'. To my mind that means it wouldn't 'exist' without the internet. Furthermore, many of the ideas of Web 2.0 are argued as shaping forces in the present and the future of online journalism. As such, the discussion of the risks of Web 2.0 that your article provides unavoidably implies a danger to journalists posed by the development of the internet.

Actually, I didn't use the term "interactive use of the internet" - that's a standfirst written for The Journalist by the editorial team. I know it's very old media, but still... Anyway, Web 2.0 is not the internet, it's a particular conception of part thereof and a disputed conception.

The problem is that the term Web 2.0 is so nebulous as to be meaningless. To different people it means drastically different things. It can mean; 'social' sites, ASPs, sites with a large amount of user submitted 'content' (define that as you will), sites using 'DHTML' (it's not actually a specific technology as such) coupled with asynchronous requests to the server (AJAX) or even sites with a particular type of graphic design. The truth is it's a useless term and the quicker we stop dignifying it with discussion the better.

I resigned from the NUJ last year after 20 years of active membership not because of the union's online policy but for personal reasons. I don't think Roy Greenslade should have resigned over the union's internet policy as it simply doesn't have one. The simple facts is that journalists who do not have online skills or are unwilling to learn these skills do not have a long-term future in the industry. Print will continue to be our core medium for years to come but we cannot ignore the growth of online media. Many companies are investing online and training their journalists to learn new skills. This will continue to happen with or without the NUJ.

Is a web journalist or blogger any less of a reporter than one writing for print? Is an online gallery any less important than a page of pictures in the printed press? There are dangers in creating an NUPJ (National Union of Print-only Journalists) and those stoking the fires should think carefully before getting to far up themselves. In a time of declining newspaper sales surely representative organisations need to be just that; representative of the world as it is.

Web 2.0 is really what the web should have been (communication) before it was dragged back into the 19th century by the established media's attempt at retaining ownership/control of information. It's a bit odd Greenslade quitting the union over one article, but that's his decision. Where he is right is that the NUJ has to move with the times and realise that the division of work is breaking down somewhat and the industry as a whole is going through a - necessary in my opinion - process of deprofessionalisation.