Citizen journalism: Being widely accepted that readers will be a permanent part of the newsgathering process, the term 'citizen journalism' is now under greater scrutiny.

Many have said in the past that 'any idiot with a camera phone' that happens to be in the right place to snap a shot is not a journalist, that not just anyone is able to write a well-researched, well-fact checked story. Buzzmachine guru Jeff Jarvis writes that this isn't the point. In fact, what citizen journalism really is all about is "networked journalism:" "This isn’t about citizens or amateurs vs. professionals. We’re all in this together. Journalism is a collaborative venture. Journalism is a network."

Steve Yelvington approves of the term appreciating that the term embodies "what professional journalists (should) do...For too long, too many professionals have imagined journalism to be a one-way process. It isn't. It never has been. The Internet may amplify the community conversation so we can hear with our tin professionalized ears, but that conversation has been there all along." 

Group wisdom: We've said before that 'social editing' sites such as Digg whose chosen articles are based on how many votes they receive by users will no doubt become more popular. But Victor Keegan at the Guardian sees an inherent danger in these sites: "News selection based on the 'wisdom of crowds' may be brilliant when applied to technology stories but could easily turn into the madness of crowds and the death of serious news if applied to everything that happens."

True (as seen by this example). But chances are Digg and its relatives will branch out into niche versions. In this way, people who want serious political news can vote on stories of that interest while people who crave the latest celebrity gossip can visit the social editing site that scours Hollywood's every move. In this way, all readers will theoretically read the best news in accordance with their own interests.

Convergence: Bringing different media under one roof appears to be an unavoidable side effect of the digital revolution. But Guardian Unlimited editor-in-chief Emily Bell thinks that convergence may not turn out to be the saving grace of media companies as predicted.

She notes that the large majority of revenues is still coming from traditional media and will be for some time. On the other hand, media companies are aware that new technologies will become ever important in the daily lives of their audience and are planning accordingly. But how far will this convergence go? Ms. Bell seems to think that the audience may not be all too keen on total convergence.

She recounts a story she heard once about our television sets recognizing what we're watching, then finding others that are watching the same thing so that the program can be discussed in online chat rooms. Sure, this could be possible, but wouldn't it be an "unnecessary enhancement" to the audience's entertainment?

Bell concludes with Rupert Murdoch and MySpace. Many predicted that News Corp. would merge its $580 million dollar social networking acquisition with its satellite, TV and newspaper holdings. But it seems that Rup has decided to keep the entities separate. It could be that MySpace users don't need any other media consumption options on their site. Tweaking the successful MySpace by imposing traditional media upon its users could result in a mass exodus.  

Sources: Steve Yelvington's blog, Buzzmachine, Guardian, Guardian Unlimited