There are fewer media writers in traditional settings. That is a beat that many legacy brands cannot afford. On the other hand technology writers are writing about media in ways they didn't before. As a consequence of the shift, there is less interest in many ways in the activities at some media. If you look at coverage of media as whole, the decision-making at the three broadcast networks and the cable channels, for instance, is much less of a focus than it once was. The guts of what goes on at Fox or CNN or MSNBC probably has less impact than it once did. It certainly gets less attention.

There are fewer media writers in traditional settings. That is a beat that many legacy brands cannot afford. On the other hand technology writers are writing about media in ways they didn't before. As a consequence of the shift, there is less interest in many ways in the activities at some media. If you look at coverage of media as whole, the decision-making at the three broadcast networks and the cable channels, for instance, is much less of a focus than it once was. The guts of what goes on at Fox or CNN or MSNBC probably has less impact than it once did. It certainly gets less attention.

To say that they are the enemy of the people, among the worst human beings on earth, it encourages and legitimizes an anger towards the press that, you know, I think, fosters this attitude.

ll industries have been disrupted and disruption tends to generate gatherings for people to share information. I don't think media are unusual here. Add to that the discovery, or perhaps expansion of the awareness, that events can generate revenue. So now we have companies whose business model is heavily based on events, whether it is Re/code or South by Southwest or many others. Those kinds of gatherings were once more institutionally oriented inside trade associations. Now they have been expanded out.

Everyone is on Facebook and age is not a determinant of whether a reporter is using Twitter as part of their newsgathering and marketing. Some of the transition is about money at this point - hiring younger reporters is cheaper. Often these reporters are more digitally savvy. But there are plenty of 50-plus journalists employers can find now who are excited about technology, not threatened. It is no longer an either/or proposition.

Machines have given us a new ability to count and make our understanding quantitative. The Web connects news gatherers with audiences in ways that were never possible before and can bring a breadth of intelligence, and experiences to understanding the news we never had. And professional reporters and editors still have a unique role to play in triangulating those inputs as well as bringing three other distinct skills - access to interrogate people in power, exceptional storytelling skills, and a discipline of open minded, skeptical inquiry - which are not as likely to be found elsewhere.

There is more interest in what is occurring in technology companies that impact news. Such companies don't have the same sense of transparency about what they do. They have a tradition of secrecy about products, mores and decision-making that goes along with Silicon Valley and intellectual property and technology. You cannot step onto the grounds of Google without signing a Non-Disclosure Agreement. That industrial secrecy mentality exists along with a theoretical sensibility about transparency on the Web, which is different than transparency inside companies that profit from the Web.