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.

As for journalism education, there are some terrifically exciting things going on in some schools. Others are struggling to adapt. Curriculum changes can be slow, by design. Yet there are arguably more dynamic minds, old and young, gravitating to teaching than ever before, both on the research and scholarly side and on the side of what is called "professional practice," a term that usually refers to experienced journalists without Ph.D's moving to the academy.

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 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.

Newspapers have been likened to steamships that move very slowly, in terms of their direction. And when a reporter is sent out on a story, if that reporter has his or her own personal standards and is given a certain amount of time, they're going to probably do as good a story yesterday or tomorrow as they did the day before yesterday when there was a different editor there. But an editor provides vision. An editor decides what's going to be on page one, what gets rewarded, who's given more time, who's given what beats. They set a direction.

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.

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.