Huh?

Im sure Jeff Jarvis is a wonderful person. Probably has a nice house, nice wife, nice dog and has nice kids. But his writing is far from nice. It took me a while re-reading his article and synthesizing the meaning using comments from other readers as well to try and grasp his point in this piece.

The overall impression I got from the article was that rather than the news being reliant on the press in order to be "news" (as it used to be), we now have other modes of getting information that should be embraced? I think he was trying to say that in our current technology era, people can get more of a well rounded view on an issue through comments, links and instant followup as opposed to reading an article in the paper and having just one interpretation of the information.

If that is a valid conclusion to this article, I suppose he kind of makes a point. It seems, however, that what he is trying to say isnt super intuitive - obviously through the instant communication we now possess, there can be more opinions presented and taken into consideration on a subject.

Feel free to disregard this post, however, as im still feeling uneasy with my conclusion. Because of his shotty writing, ive decided that I must stop re reading it to try and make some sense of his writing because its doing nothing but making my head hurt.