In a December 11 column, Howell compares and contrasts the broadsheet Post with Washington Post-Newsweek Interactive, the company that run's the newspaper's website, focusing chiefly on columnist Dan Froomkin's blog/opinion website.

She divulges the fact that most reporters at the Post don't appreciate Froomkin's daily column, White House Briefing, because it is "highly opinionated and liberal." They also think that it blurs the line between the daily investigative journalism of the Post's three White House staffers and online journalism such as Froomkin's column, which is a mixture of links to columns in other publications and commentary.

When scrutinizing the dispute and Froomkin's column under the same magnifying glass, it becomes apparent that newspaper journalism is subtly transforming in a manner that some experts have forecast.

Newspapers as aggregators: Over the summer, Columbia University professor Eli Noam wrote a piece declaring that "Today's newspaper becomes tomorrow's news-integrator." Froomkin's blog acts in such a way.

Froomkin reads a number of articles, giving quick summaries and links to the originals on his blog. Reporters have complained that this isn't journalism, and that may be true. But Froomkin usually adds his take on the situation covered in the articles to which he links.

What better way for the busy reader of today to gain a general overview of a subject than to read condensed reports by numerous reporters accompanied by the educated view of the columnist who has read, understood and dissected all of the articles?

The end of objectivity: Noting that it is a recently developed phenomenon, former tech columnist for the San Jose Mercury News and host at Bayosphere, Dan Gillmor, said in February that objectivity will be replaced on the Internet with the four "pillars" of quality journalism: thoroughness, accuracy, fairness and transparency. Froomkin's column is characterized by these four pillars:

• thoroughness: he reads as many different accounts of a topic as possible;
• accuracy: although he may not be doing the reporting himself, Froomkin accurately cites from where his sources come as well as their view of a topic, leaving the readers to decide on other reporters' accuracy;
• fairness: Froomkin gives a balanced account of an issue by letting readers know what reporters and columnists on all sides of the spectrum think;
• transparency: by linking to all of his sources and background, Froomkin lets readers know how his opinion was formed

Owning content: Jeff Jarvis asked back in August, "Who wants to own content?" The gist of his essay is that news organizations need to stop worrying about owning their material and begin connecting and enabling readers which will ultimately form a relationship of trust between readers and newsrooms. Froomkin, and well-written blogs, are exemplary of this. 

Because of the looming atmosphere of competition, traditional newsrooms are hesitant to link to other publications. But why? For years they have been rehashing other paper's scoops to fill their own pages, a practice denounced by PaidContent's Rafat Ali for stealing valuable finances and time from original reporting. Such original reporting in addition to links to other news organizations' original reporting would surely enrich newspapers for the benefit of the reader, something that Froomkin's readers obviously appreciate.

Reconnecting with the reader: A March article in OJR, as well as many media pundits, have said that the MSM has strayed from its roots and lost touch with its readers. Froomkin, and newspaper blogs in general, reopen papers to their public by allowing comments and interaction with columnists.

The fact that much of the MSM still do not allow reader comments shows that they still don't "get it." In that, they're missing a huge advantage of new media.

Consider Froomkin's response to his ombudsman's article. Readers responded with nearly 700 comments overwhelmingly in favor of his column. Now consider Howell's column. No comments allowed.  **see corrections below in comments**

In this respect, we don't really have much of an idea of what supporters of Howell's stance think. Doesn't that seem somewhat askew seeing as the ombudsman is the public editor, the people's connection to the paper? Shouldn't she be telling us what the readers think?

Instead, the WaPo "print vs. online" debate, or conversation, isn't actually a debate nor conversation at all, as so far as readers are concerned. It's one-sided, clearly in favor of Froomkin's readers. Howell, and the rest of the print staff are only hurting themselves more by not opening themselves up to public critique.

Here's an excerpt from Dan Froomkin's response to the controversy on PressThink that sums up the shift to new media:

"To the extent that something good can come of all this, I hope it’s that the increased visibility for my column will call attention to its success as a new journalistic form, taking advantage of the Internet’s ability to link and the Web’s appetite for voice. The links, for instance, allow readers to assess my credibility on their own. My voice has helped create a large community of devoted, regular readers. This isn’t anti-Post; this is neo-Post; it’s one of many ways The Post organization is adapting to a new medium with enthusiasm and vigor."

Between this comment, readers enthusiasm in their responses to Froomkin, and WaPo Chairman Don Graham's recent epiphany that WaPo will be able "to tell you about certain subjects better on the Internet than we will be able to in print," it seems obvious that journalism is undergoing a monumental transformation under the pressure of new media.

Sources: Howell's column, White House Briefing, AdAge (Rafat Ali), PressThink, Buzzmachine