Re re competition: I wasn’t referring not so much to corporate or intentional competition, but more to the general increase in information available to the average reader who has to choose what to read. If you have an RSS feeder with all the news on your favourite topic (for example, “U.S. politics”) then there will be more information there than most people can take in. Therefore, each of these information sources “competes” for your attention, and, human nature being what it is, for the most part the winners are the loudest, most shocking or sensational voices.

And I have to say I’m not convinced that the “open marketplace” is the best source for news. Certainly, in terms of just getting the information out there, the blogosphere and other collaborative avenues are usually the fastest. However, as you point out, most people get their information from other sources, and the further the degrees of separation, the more likely to be errors, prejudice, carelessness, etc. The example of news by whistleblowers makes me cringe. Yes, indeed, blow the whistle and draw public attention to an issue or situation, but that’s not the whole story. I’m not naive enough to think that anyone, even a journalist, has an objective viewpoint, but I do need to get more than one viewpoint on any story, and I would distrust any whistleblower’s ability to offer more than one side.

Re re ad revenue: Yes.

One thing that seems to be happening — with newspapers and bloggers alike — is increased competition for the ear or eye of the public. The huge glut of information available means that people can easily find out any information they want (whether or not it is credible and accurate is another question); however, that means that information that isn’t competitive is dropped. You see how blogs and sites like StumbledUpon jump on whatever is the latest flavour of the millisecond, while possibly more important information withers on the newsvine.

Ironically, the quality of information is getting squeezed even as we benefit from the increased quantity of information.