I don't think the rhetoric toward President Trump from media sources or media commentators is any worse than what Franklin Roosevelt got from a conservative press in another era. And Roosevelt was, you know, not as blunt as Trump about the press, but, you know, there was an ideological press back then, when we had multiple newspapers in town.

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.

I don't think the rhetoric toward President Trump from media sources or media commentators is any worse than what Franklin Roosevelt got from a conservative press in another era. And Roosevelt was, you know, not as blunt as Trump about the press, but, you know, there was an ideological press back then, when we had multiple newspapers in town.

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.

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.

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.