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.

This is a time of tremendous ferment and experimentation that is scary and exciting at the same time. The biggest challenge for media remains economic. How will we pay for the kind of work that really makes a difference? The revenue model for news has been profoundly disrupted, and that is as much a challenge for Vox, Medium, Yahoo or Twitter as it is in some ways for The New York Times or a local newspaper.

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 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.

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.

We're not seeing, you know, dozens of reporters being beaten up. And there may be more attention to it than there has been in the past. But it is important to recognize that the democracy depends on reporters asking people in power questions, so that the general public has information. We can't really self-govern unless information is widespread. And, sometimes, reporters have to be a little aggressive. I mean, you know, the reporter didn't beat up the politician. The politician beat up the reporter.