It is unfair to compare the Internet, especially the Web, with print when evaluating the two mediums’ place in society.

Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press over 550 years ago. Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web less than 15 years ago. Print has been engrained into societies across the globe. As of right now, only 25.6 percent of the population use the Web, according to Internet World Stats.

William Powers makes a compelling point in suggesting that paper is eternal. Often times reading words on a digital device encourages scanning as opposed to careful reading. It is true that attempts at completely paper-less offices have failed, most likely because people are often more comfortable holding documents in their hands to read, instead of reading on the Web.

However, it is very possible that a paperless world is in the future since the Web is so new and there are already attempts at eliminating paper. Companies are actually charging customers for receiving paper bills in the mail as a way to encourage checking statements online. People are creatures of habit. Right now, paper is the habit.

Already there are people substituting the paper grocery list to the one on the blackberry. Notes left for family members on the kitchen counter are replaced with a quick text instead.

I doubt there will ever be anything as rigid as a law against paper-use, but there will come a time when it is much less prominent medium for communication than it is now.

Since the demand for news sources on the Internet has skyrocketed in the past few years, Web sites like The Onion have been popping up more and more. News is often dry and humorless, and sites that poke fun at stereotypes or world issues attract those with a dry sense of humor who are looking for a chuckle. I’m always up for a laugh and therefore say kudos to The Onion. 

However, there are Web sites that are threatening the standards and credibility of journalism. Nytimes-se.com looks just like the official New York Times Web site, uses the trusted newspaper’s flag at the top of the page and appears to have timely and relevant news stories linked to it. Nevertheless, it has completely falsified stories as it’s content.

This is misleading, and may cause those who stumble upon the Web site to second guess a news sources that’s been promising to publish “all the news that’s fit to print” for over a century.

 As a result of just about anyone having access to contribute to the Web, what is found online is not often immediately trustworthy. When Tim Fries created a Web site that had cnn.com in the URL and then posted that Brittney Spears had died in a car accident, it was one of the most believed Internet hoaxes.

The Web is a breeding ground for misinformation and nothing on it should be blindly trusted. Ever.

Now that I’ve got that out of the way, I’ll move onto a little Lee bashing.

When he said “If it isn’t on the Web, it doesn’t exist,” he must have somehow blanked out of the first few millennia of human existence that not only carried on but thrived before his precious Internet innovation.

Not only that, but his statement suggests that the millions of people who are not active users of the Web don’t exist. A huge percentage of the world’s population does not log onto the Internet on a regular basis whether it be because of age, income, education or location.

Does my 84-year-old grandmother who has never in her life typed a word on a computer’s keyboard fall into the category of the non-existent? What of the inner-city schoolchildren whose families’ may not have the resources to buy a home computer?

In one breath, Lee exacerbated the concerns of the great digital divide.

People who do not use the Web are not on the Web. They’re profiles aren’t found when one enters their names into the browsers of online communities or social networking sites.

I think it is fair to say that a man as smart and influential as Lee has had finer moments.

Or was that just me?

Little did I know when I chose journalism as a major that I would be exposed as a helpless simpleton who barely knows how to turn her cell phone on vibrate. I am not a good representation of what my generation is supposed to be. I am not a savvy, gadget-guzzling young adult.

Nevertheless, I have always been curious. I want to be one of those people, but I cant help screaming profanities at the computer because I can’t figure out how iTunes works. I have an alpha complex, and am not used to being the dumb kid in the class.

But I am.

If I want to be the best, most marketable and employable journalist, I’ll need more than my ability to form coherent sentences. I’ll need to design my own Web sites, and show that I am somewhat Internet savvy.

I wonder if there is some sort of DNA code embedded in all of us that makes us thirst for or resist things like the Web.

For example, President Obama wouldn’t dream of running the country without his Blackberry, while George Bush had no problem with the White House’s anti-Internet policy.

Sadly, I am like Bush in this analogy. Evidently, I need change.

What changed? I bought a laptop and starting getting my news by “reading” articles found on the Web.

 I pulled the double quote thing because I’m not sure that what I do while scrolling through the pages of blogs and news articles constitutes as reading.

 Unless an online article is exhibiting some form of rare awesomeness, I’ll take about a minute at most running my eyes down the story searching for the gist. If when I ask myself “if someone brought this up in conversation, would I get what they’re talking about?” If the answer is “yes,” then I move on to another article.

 I’m finding I’m learning a small amount about a lot of things.

 By following the growing trend to read everything from books to newspapers on the Web, people often find themselves either scanning or getting distracted from the content of the works by all the click-able things on the side bars, said Alan Liu, the chairman of the english department at U.C. Santa Barbara.

 Not only do I not consume my news from just one publication anymore, rather I have the option of having new online content directly delivered to my e-mail from my favorite sources by subscribing to them.

It’s even better than getting the paper delivered to my front door. This way I don’t even get out of bed since my laptop is usually sitting on my desk next to me while I sleep.

Things have changed. People aren’t simply relying on news organizations such as CNN or The New York Times for their information, they are now hearing it from each other. People are going onto social networking sites, visiting their online communities and blogging online as ways to collect information.

Instead of shying away from citizen journalism, traditional news media outlets should embrace user generated content. By interacting and participating with bloggers, news outlets are sending a very vital message: We want to hear what you have to say about news. For those looking for a place to belong, this is very attractive.

Traditional news outlets embracing citizen journalism has the potential to be a winning situation. If everyone is a contributing journalist, then the possibilities for what can be and then shared are endless.

When terrorists attacked Mumbai, some of the best photography and video footage  (go to 0:52) were shot by amateurs who were caught in the midst of the atrocities.

Citizen journalist don’t have to replace professional journalists, but they do deserve a place in news.

 As a result of longing to belong, Internet users find ways to connect across the globe with other’s who share their same interests. However, in forming these visible communities, advertisers can now reach us on a much more personal level.

In seeking out and connecting with others like us, we have compartmentalized ourselves into easily targeted groups. Whether we engage in Celebrity Bashing  or are Wiccan’s commenting on the “Twilight” series,  advertisers now have new way to sell us stuff.

These Internet villages are not just a way for us herd creatures to find each other and connect, but rather the communities themselves are now a way for the marketing industry to make a buck off our interests.

 Patrick Dixon advises multinational corporations on global trends and risk management. People would much rather listen to someone who doesn’t come across as an outsider or a salesperson, he said. We want people like us, or rather people of our respective “tribes“ to relay the facts and helpful advice we need.

 What better place for advertisers to post their billboards than on a the backdrop of  trusted Internet villages where the products are specially designed to appeal to the users of the site? Advertising season has begun and online communities are pond full of sitting consumers.

However, when Wikipedia became a playground for those  choosing to post absurd and entirely falsified facts on the site as a way to promote their own extremist viewpoints it was obvious that Wikipedia wasn’t perfect. I realized that the “wild west” form of posting and delivering information was just as naughty and irrelevant as having the elitist mentality of a society of only a few gatekeepers relaying information.

Either way the pendulum swings, it’s all bad.Which is why I tip my hat (as Steven Colbert would say) to Wikipedia and it’s acknowledgement that not everyone should be allowed to be considered an expert.

An opinion recognized as fact is wrong. However, I am a fan of what Wikipedia was trying to accomplish by allowing a publicly accessed and publicly created encyclopedia.

Keep in mind that Einstein never graduated high school. There are intelligent people needing to be heard even though they lack the credentials of an MIT professor.

Editors aren’t bad people. Editors help writers perfect their work so they don’t offend or perpetuate biases. Editors are why bloggers should never be blindly trusted. Good editors help ensure that this doesn’t  happen.

Editors don’t have to be the gatekeepers of information, they should just be the well-valued copy editors of it.

The editing process evokes confidence among readers, which is why Wikipedia now how a panel of editors to review some posts, especially those concerning living people. Kudos to Wikipedia for admitting that adjustments needed to be made.

Instead of the “shovelware” approach to online journalism that some newspapers are still utilizing, there are better ways to communicate news to those more inclined to online information.

Embracing the qualities of the web, such as and blogging, does not mean the death of journalism. I think it means just the opposite actually.

The job market is expanding for journalists willing to straddle the border between print and online. People have never, and probably never will tire of reliable news. People never will tire of interactive learning either; it’s the best kind and keeps us from getting bored.

When a person sits down to read the paper they are learning about the news. Blogging allows the reader to become interactive, and potentially better informed.

Readers can question and correct a blogger. The writer reads the comments, and uses the reader as a tool for delivering better, more accurate information.

From newspapers to cable television, journalists have taken new technologies and applied them as a way to disperse information to the world. So why is the web so scary to journalists?

I don’t think that blogging is the only future for reporters, but I think it is avenue that must be explored and utilized rather than ignored.

My name is Patty, I am a journalist, and I have a blog.