翻译者 ：素为

        我们总是及时地注视并记录着某些时刻。任何一个社会都有它需要被注视并记录的时刻，这些大小事件汹涌而来，冲击着传统的新闻传播渠道，已经超过了它的承载能力。
　　We freeze some moments in time. Every culture has its frozen moments, events so important and personal that they transcend the normal flow of news.

　　举例来说，美国老人们还能非常精确地记得，当听闻罗斯福总统死讯之时自己身处何处以及所做何事。稍晚一代的人则对肯尼迪总统遇刺更是记忆尤新。而2001年9月11日，对于所有成年人来说，目睹或听说飞机撞进摩天大楼里所发生的爆炸将成为永世缠绕在他们心头的阴霾。
　　Americans of a certain age, for example, know precisely where they were and what they were doing when they learned that President Franklin D. Roosevelt died. Another generation has absolute clarity of John F. Kennedy’s assassination. And no one who was older than a baby on September 11, 2001, will ever forget hearing about, or seeing, airplanes exploding into skyscrapers.

　　1945年，人们只能聚集在收音机旁边听着即时的新闻报道，当听到有关先驱者倒下及其继承人的更多消息时，都屏住呼吸。报纸则是发行号外版，且在接下来的若干天内才陆续有专栏的详细报道使内容充实。杂志则从一定的深度来透视这些热点事件。
　　In 1945, people gathered around radios for the immediate news, and stayed with the radio to hear more about their fallen leader and about the man who took his place. Newspapers printed extra editions and filled their columns with detail for days and weeks afterward. Magazines stepped back from the breaking news and offered perspective.

　　1963年发生了类似的大事，不过那时已经有了较为先进的新闻媒体。肯尼迪死亡的即时消息基本上是通过电视传播开来的；那时我已懂事，依然记得沃尔特.克农凯特戴上边角眼镜来阅读来自达拉斯的那条消息，然后强忍着泪水告诉他的观众——领袖已经逝去的悲痛时刻。就像稍早前一样，报纸和杂志都竭尽所能在事件的细节和背景上下工夫。
　　Something similar happened in 1963, but with a newer medium. The immediate news of Kennedy’s death came for most via television; I’m old enough to remember that heartbreaking moment when Walter Cronkite put on his hornrimmed glasses to glance at a message from Dallas and then, blinking back tears, told his viewers that their leader was gone. As in the earlier time, newspapers and magazines pulled out all the stops to add detail and context.

　　2001年9月11日，仍然延续着那种糟糕的新闻报道模式。作为观众，我们反反复复地盯着那可怕的景象，了解到是世界贸易大楼遭到了袭击，这得谢谢电视传媒工作者的辛勤工作，是他们播放了让人身临其境的惨状画面。接着，通过出版的书刊和有思想的电视广播评论，我们逐渐明白了一些深邃的个中道理——不能只是说说而已。新闻工作者能将工作做的这样出色，身为他们的一员我也感到十分骄傲。
　　September 11, 2001, followed a similarly grim pattern. We watched-again and again-the awful events. Consumers of news learned the what about the attacks, thanks to the television networks that showed the horror so graphically. Then we learned some of the how and why as print publications and thoughtful broadcasters worked to bring depth to events that defied mere words. Journalists did some of their finest work and made me proud to be one of them.

　　不过，某种意味深长的变化发生了：这一次历史事件的初稿并不是按照一如既往的方式产生的，它不只是由“正式的”新闻机构决定的，那些有话要说有物要示普通人参与了新闻初稿的创作。此时，从前是观众身份的人们撰写了历史事件的（至少是一部分）初稿。互联网提供的新的出版工具使这样的状况成为可能，甚至是不可避免的趋势。
　　But something else, something profound, was happening this time around: news was being produced by regular people who had something to say and show, and not solely by the “official” news organizations that had traditionally decided how the first draft of history would look. This time, the first draft of history was being written, in part, by the former audience. It was possible-it was inevitable-because of new publishing tools available on the Internet.

　　在那令人毛骨悚然的时日里，一种新的报道方式冒了出来。从电子邮件、邮件组、聊天群、个人网络日志这些非正式的新闻来源中，我们看到了许多珍贵的背景资料，而这些是美国的主要媒体不能也不会报道的。
　　Another kind of reporting emerged during those appalling hours and days. Via emails, mailing lists, chat groups, personal web journals-all nonstandard news sources-we received valuable context that the major American media couldn’t, or wouldn’t, provide.

　　我们目击了，甚至参与了，这将是未来的新闻。
　　We were witnessing-and in many cases were part of-the future of news.

　　六个月后，又一次事件中示范了未来的新闻模式。不过，这回的相关利益则小得多，它只是让某位有权势的官员产生了一丝的不安。2002年3月26日，可怜的琼.那乔亲身体验了回未来的样子，并且在一定程度上，这次是我帮忙搭的台。事实上，那乔当时正在出席“PC论坛”讨论赚钱的问题，那是一个在菲尼克斯郊区进行的高层官员会议。他似乎也正沉溺于自怜之中。那乔此时担任的是区域电讯行业巨人——库维斯特——一个在很多州的市场几乎都处于垄断地位的企业的首席执行官。在那天“PC论坛”的聚会上，他抱怨起融资的困难。特别是当很多那乔所要面对的困难是他自己的管理原因造成的，可以想象，必然就会抱怨运营一个垄断企业都是艰苦的了。
　　Six months later came another demonstration of tomorrow’s journalism. The stakes were far lower this time, merely a moment of discomfort for a powerful executive. On March 26, 2002, poor Joe Nacchio got a first-hand taste of the future; and this time, in a small way, I helped set the table. Actually, Nacchio was rolling in wealth that day, when he appeared at PC Forum, an exclusive executive conference in suburban Phoenix. He was also, it seemed, swimming in self-pity. In those days Nacchio was the chief executive of regional telephone giant Qwest, a near-monopoly in its multistate marketplace. At the PC Forum gathering that particular day, he was complaining about difficulties in raising capital. Imagine: whining about the rigors of running a monopoly, especially when Nacchio’s own management moves had contributed to some of the difficulties he was facing.

　　作为听众，我利用会场为与会者布置的无线网络频繁地更新我的博客，将会议的最新消息发布其上，这样的报道方式几乎就是第一现场的，所谓博客，就是一种短文形式的网上日志。 另一位有着新闻工作者身份的博客写作者也这么做，他叫多克.瑟奥斯，是一份名字叫《LINUX报道》的软件杂志的高级编辑。
　　I was in the audience, reporting in something close to real time by publishing frequent conference updates to my weblog, an online journal of short web postings, via a wireless link the conference had set up for attendees. So was another journalist weblogger, Doc Searls, senior editor of Linux Journal, a software magazine.

　　我们倒是一点也没预料到，那天早上的事情会成为商业交往中的一个小小的传奇。我甚至没有意识到，写作博客的经验会使我对新闻报道方式中正在发生的变化有了如此彻底的觉悟。
　　Little did we know that the morning’s events would turn into a mini-legend in the business community. Little did I know that the experience would expand my understanding of how thoroughly the craft of journalism was changing.

　　我在网志里记录着那乔的抱怨，但又留意到当公司股票的市值猛降时，他自己却是财源广进——这正是老总赚钱而股东、雇员及公众受害的又一例证。
　　One of my posts noted Nacchio’s whining, observing that he’d gotten seriously richer while his company was losing much of its market value-another example of CEOs raking in the riches while shareholders, employees, and communities got the shaft.

　　马上我就收到了巴兹.博格曼发来的电子邮件，作为佛罗里达州的一位律师，此时他正在奥兰多的办公室里看着我和瑟奥斯不断更新的日志。“美国真强啊！”博格曼讽刺地写道，然后他附给我一个到雅虎财经频道的链接，这条新闻报道了，当公司的股票市值猛降时，是那乔从中套取了两亿的现金。我这才惊异地发觉，这正与我所写的内容相关，于是马上将这份有噱头的报道放到我的博客上，并对博格曼表示了一种网上的致意。（“谢谢您的链接，”我插在括号里。）多克.瑟奥斯也都差不多这样做。
　　Seconds later I received an email from Buzz Bruggeman, a lawyer in Florida, who was following my weblog and Searls’s from his office in Orlando. “Ain’t America great?” Bruggeman wrote sarcastically, attaching a hyperlink to a Yahoo! Finance web page showing that Nacchio had cashed in more than $200 million in stock while his company’s stock price was heading downhill. This information struck me as relevant to what I was writing, and I immediately dropped this juicy tidbit into my weblog, with a cyber-tip of the hat to Bruggeman. ("Thanks, Buzz, for the link,” I wrote parenthetically.) Doc Searls did likewise.

　　主持这次会议的艾德温特投资公司的老总伊沙.德尚说：“围绕着那个观点，读者开始有点不怀好意了，”一方面，首先要问的是，我和多克在整个事件中扮演了某种角色吗？答案是显而易见的。当天上午在这个豪华酒店的会场里坐着的官员，金融家，企业家和记者中的一些人，也许有一半在上网看着我和多克不断更新的日志以供消遣吧。以至于在接下来的时间里，听众明显冷落了继续演说的那乔。德尚除了是个投资者，还是位作家，之后她说，正是我们的博客制造了这样的冷落。另一方面，她也将博客称之为“贯穿在第一会场的第二会议。”
　　“Around that point, the audience turned hostile,” wrote Esther Dyson, whose company, Edventure Holdings, held the conference.1 Did Doc and I play a role? Apparently. Many people in the luxury hotel ballroom-perhaps half of the executives, financiers, entrepreneurs, and journalists-were also online that morning. And at least some of them were musing themselves by following what Doc and I were writing. During the remainder of Nacchio’s session, there was a perceptible chill toward the man. Dyson, an investor and author, said later she was certain that our weblogs helped create that chill. 2 She called the blogging “a second conference occurring around, through, and across the first.”

　　我为什么要讲这个故事呢？毕竟这也不是多么惊天动地的事情。但是对我来说，它无论如何都是一个转折点。思考一下这次整个新闻的过程：从亚利桑那的会场链接到奥兰多，再反馈回亚利桑那，以至最终传遍全球的循环。在一个卫星通讯发达、布满光纤网络的世界里，即时新闻已经是很常见的了，不过现在，我们的新闻工作者们已经在其中加入了观众所特有的知识内容。
　　Why am I telling this story? This was not an earth-shaking event, after all. For me, however, it was a tipping point. Consider the sequence of news flow: a feedback loop that started in an Arizona conference session, zipped to Orlando, came back to Arizona and ultimately went global. In a world of satellite communications and fiber optics, real-time journalism is routine; but now we journalists had added the expertise of the audience.

　　这样不可阻挡的趋势对每个相关的人来说，都是有所启发的，包括“新闻人物”那乔，他必须面对记者与被采访者之间常有的紧张乃至敌对的关系所带来的新的压力。那乔失去了他的职位，并不是因为我们挑剔过他的傲慢行为和态度，他最终的离职原因是他根本不适格做一名首席执行官。不过他那天早上确实已经微微品尝到了未来新闻报道方式的枯涩滋味。然而我相信，在这个小故事中，对未来新闻报道方式感受最深刻的人并不是作为“新闻人物”的那乔也不是专业的新闻记者，而是博格曼。从前，在科技尚未与新闻报道结合的如此之紧密的时候，他只是普通读者的一员。可是现在，不必等着报纸、杂志甚至是网页这些传统新闻媒体的报道出炉，他就可以了解到一件事。而且今天，他自己都成为了整个新闻过程的一部分——一个平民知情者用他的知识和敏锐思维及时地帮助我报道了这件事情。
　　Those forces had lessons for everyone involved, including the “newsmaker"-Nacchio-who had to deal with new pressures on the always edgy, sometimes adversarial relationship between journalists and the people we cover. Nacchio didn’t lose his job because we poked at his arrogance; he lost it, in the end, because he did an inadequate job as CEO. But he got a tiny, if unwelcome, taste of journalism’s future that morning. The person in our little story who tasted journalism’s future most profoundly, I believe, was neither the professional reporter nor the newsmaker, but Bruggeman. In an earlier time, before technology had collided so violently with journalism, he’d been a member of an audience. Now, he’d received news about an event without waiting for the traditional coverage to arrive via newspapers or magazines, or even web sites. And now he’d become part of the journalistic process himself-a citizen reporter whose knowledge and quick thinking helped inform my own journalism in a timely way.

　　博格曼不再是消费者。他是一个生产者了。他在撰写新闻。
　　Bruggeman was no longer just a consumer. He was a producer. He was making the news.

　　这是一本关于新闻传播的书，描述了从20世纪的大众媒体到某种影响深远的更加注重草根阶层和民主的媒体的结构之演变过程。这是一个进化的故事。人们总是想将所知道的告诉其他人，历史发展过程中的每个新时代人与人间的交流都会变得更加方便些。今天也将有一场革命，因为无论如何，科技已经赋予我们一种成本低廉却能将信息传遍全球的交流工具，它让每个人都变成了记者。这是史无前例的。
　　This book is about journalism’s transformation from a 20th century mass-media structure to something profoundly more grassroots and democratic. It’s a story, first, of evolutionary change. Humans have always told each other stories, and each new era of progress has led to an expansion of storytelling. This is also a story of a modern revolution, however, because technology has given us a communications toolkit that allows anyone to become a journalist at little cost and, in theory, with global reach. Nothing like this has ever been remotely possible before.

　　20世纪的时候，撰写新闻几乎只是记者和那些接受采访的所谓“新闻人物”的事情，又或者说操纵新闻的只是那些拥有广泛的社会关系和市场的人。出版和广播电视行业的商业化造就了傲慢的新闻机构，我们称之为大媒霸，可就连一些小城镇的报纸和广播电视也都显得很糟糕。
　　In the 20th century, making the news was almost entirely the province of journalists; the people we covered, or “newsmakers"; and the legions of public relations and marketing people who manipulated everyone. The economics of publishing and broadcasting created large, arrogant institutions-call it Big Media, though even small-town newspapers and broadcasters exhibit some of the phenomenon’s worst symptoms.

　　大媒霸把对任何事件的报道都当作是在讲课。让我们告诉你这件事是怎么回事吧。信不信由你。当然你也可以来信谈一谈，我们也许能将它刊登出来。（可是，如果是电视媒体或者你是在投诉，我们将不会理你，除非这封投诉信采用了名誉权律师的信头。）要么你就不要再订我们的刊物，不要看我们的节目了。这样的状况助长着新闻媒体的自满和傲慢。现在他们还能趁机捞一把，但这将不会长久了。
　　Big Media, in any event, treated the news as a lecture. We told you what the news was. You bought it, or you didn’t. You might write us a letter; we might print it. (If we were television and you complained, we ignored you entirely unless the complaint arrived on a libel lawyer’s letterhead.) Or you cancelled your subscription or stopped watching our shows. It was a world that bred complacency and arrogance on our part. It was a gravy train while it lasted, but it was unsustainable.

　　未来的新闻报道和制作过程将会更像一段谈话或一场研讨会。新闻撰写者与读者的界限将模糊，相对来说，双方的角色都在改变着，而现在我们才刚刚意识到。互联网将会成为一种能够倾听所有人声音的媒体，而不再仅仅是那些能够出得起几百万美圆买印刷机、发射卫星、以及得到政府特许霸占本来属于公众的波段的少数人的专利。
　　Tomorrow’s news reporting and production will be more of a conversation, or a seminar. The lines will blur between producers and consumers, changing the role of both in ways we’re only beginning to grasp now. The communication network itself will be a medium for everyone’s voice, not just the few who can afford to buy multimillion-dollar printing presses, launch satellites, or win the government’s permission to squat on the public’s airwaves.

　　在压力面前，各种各样的利益集团只有改变以适应新的变化——从像讲课一样的新闻到像谈话或研讨会一样的新闻的进化。而其他所有的人，从记者到被采访者再到信息源头的知情人，甚至从前仅仅是听众的那些人，都必须有某种相应的变化。当然，你仍然可以选择保持现状。
　　This evolution-from journalism as lecture to journalism as a conversation or seminar-will force the various communities of interest to adapt. Everyone, from journalists to the people we cover to our sources and the former audience, must change their ways. The alternative is just more of the same.

　　只是我们再也忍受不了目前的状况了。我们不能再忍受新闻基本上由大机构控制而老百姓仅仅把新闻当作一种日常消费品的状况了！再也不能忍受社会对我们选择权利的束缚了。我们甚至都难以负担起用于购买新闻的开销，因为连华尔街都有求于并屈从于大媒霸。
　　We can’t afford more of the same. We can’t afford to treat the news solely as a commodity, largely controlled by big institutions. We can’t afford, as a society, to limit our choices. We can’t even afford it financially, because Wall Street’s demands on Big Media are dumbing down the product itself.

　　当任何人都可以撰写新闻的时候，将会存在三大主要群体。从前他们彼此的身份曾是壁垒分明的，但现在界限已经日渐模糊了起来。
　　There are three major constituencies in a world where anyone can make the news. Once largely distinct, they’re now blurring into each other.

　　新闻记者
　　Journalists

　　我们会发现，自己正是这个新事物中的一员，即使我们的读者/听众/观众，也将变成新闻经过的一个部分。例如，我将习惯，我的读者比我知道的更多，这不是威胁，相反对于新闻工作来说是种解放。各行各业的新闻记者都将拥护这样的状况。大家拿起草根阶层的新闻工具吧，否则就会被历史所淘汰。我们的核心价值依旧是准确和公正，这是重要的，并且运用某种方式，我们新闻记者依旧是充当看门人的角色，但是我们的塑造较大型访谈和提供新闻背景的能力则至少和掌握事实并报道它们的能力是同等重要的。
　　We will learn we are part of something new, that our readers/listeners/viewers are becoming part of the process. I take it for granted, for example, that my readers know more than I do-and this is a liberating, not threatening, fact of journalistic life. Every reporter on every beat should embrace this. We will use the tools of grassroots journalism or be consigned to history. Our core values, including accuracy and fairness, will remain important, and we’ll still be gatekeepers in some ways, but our ability to shape larger conversations-and to provide context-will be at least as important as our ability to gather facts and report them.

　　新闻人物
　　Newsmakers

　　正如那乔所体会到的，有能力的权贵人士正在探索，它还有哪些地方不够完善。此外，当任何人都能成为记者的时候，聪明人会努力尝试，他们很可能发现被专业人士所忽略的一些东西。政治家和商人们也正逐渐体会到。当然，新闻人物同样将有新的渠道去传播他们的消息，既使用草根阶层正在使用的这项技术。霍华德.迪恩参加总统竞选虽然失败了，但是他参加竞选时同群众交流的方法将会被模仿并发扬光大，因为他是在用新的工具赢得支持者。生活在人际交往和社会网络边缘的人可能是对新闻人物批评最尖刻的人了，但他们也很可能成为其最热情和珍贵的盟友，他们可能与新闻人物合作，互相帮助。
　　The rich and powerful are discovering new vulnerabilities, as Nacchio learned. Moreover, when anyone can be a journalist, many talented people will try-and they’ll find things the professionals miss. Politicians and business people are learning this every day. But newsmakers also have new ways to get out their message, using the same technologies the grassroots adopts. Howard Dean’s presidential campaign failed, but his methods will be studied and emulated because of the way his campaign used new tools to engage his supporters in a conversation. The people at the edges of the communications and social networks can be a newsmaker’s harshest, most effective critics. But they can also be the most fervent and valuable allies, offering ideas to each other and to the newsmaker as well.

　　从前的听众
　　The former audience

　　从前仅是新闻消费者的听众，现在已经逐渐学会怎样获得更好的、及时的报道了。他们也在学会怎样去参与到新闻工作的流程中，努力营造大众对话的氛围，甚至在某些方面，他们做的比专业人士更好。比如，葛兰.雷罗斯（又名“Instapundit”）就不单单是一位大众喜欢的博客写作者，更重要的是，通过这个过程他聚集了大量的人气使他有了一定的权威。最终，一些草根阶层的新闻报道者会变成专业人士。我们也将会听到更多的声音和拥有更多的选择。
　　Once mere consumers of news, the audience is learning how to get a better, timelier report. It’s also learning how to join the process of journalism, helping to create a massive conversation and, in some cases, doing a better job than the professionals. For example, Glenn Reynolds, a.k.a. “Instapundit,” is not just one of the most popular webloggers; he has amassed considerable influence in the process. Some grassroots journalists will become professionals. In the end, we’ll have more voices and more options.

　　我成为一名专业的新闻记者已经差不多25年了。感谢我所获得的机会和目前拥有的职位。我尊重以及仰慕我的同事们，并且得承认大媒霸在很多时候的工作都是很出色的。但是我也清醒地意识到，新闻产业现在这样的结构助长了危险的保守主义倾向。虽然大家都很明白，这是从商业上而不是从政治上来说，但确实威胁到了我们的未来。我们的行业拒绝变革，虽说多少是有点经济利益的考虑，但还是会伤害我们的新闻事业，拒绝变革会让我们在未来的现实面前变成瞎子

　　I’ve been in professional journalism for almost 25 years. I’m grateful for the opportunities I’ve had, and the position I hold. I respect and admire my colleagues, and believe that Big Media does a superb job in many cases. But I’m absolutely certain that the journalism industry’s modern structure has fostered a dangerous conservatism-from a business sense more than a political sense, though both are apparent-that threatens our future. Our resistance to change, some of it caused by financial concerns, has wounded the journalism we practice and has made us nearly blind to tomorrow’s realities.

　　最大的敌人也许恰恰是我们自己。各家传媒企业为了短期的利益，制作的新闻报道质量粗糙，虽然今天还处于至高无上的地位，但长期下去，这样的经营方式必将损害我们的新闻事业。
　　Our worst enemy may be ourselves. Corporate journalism, which dominates today, is squeezing quality to boost profits in the short term. Perversely, such tactics are ultimately likely to undermine us.

　　大媒霸收入丰厚。在经济景气时，日报可以在一般的半垄断市场上赚取25%到30%甚至更高的利润。地方电视台的利润更是高达50%以上。而对于华尔街来说，真是怎样的收入都无法满足他们的欲望，利润一定要年年持续攀升才行。
　　Big Media enjoys high margins. Daily newspapers in typically quasi-monopoly markets make 25-30 percent or more in good years. Local TV stations can boast margins north of 50 percent. For Wall Street, however, no margin is sufficiently rich, and next year’s profits must be higher still.

　　这就形成了一个永远塞不满的无底洞：报刊发行商和广播电视企业的管理人员如果觉得还可以通过减少新闻的数量和降低报道的质量来谋求更大的利润，他们就会这么做。一次又一次，华尔街的索求和投资者的贪婪终于磨灭了新闻行业应有的社会公信准则。难以置信，难道赋予新闻记者调查权和出版权的宪法第一修正案还规定了要考虑企业利润了吗？虽然目前我们尚有一定的市场，但放任其如此发展下去是可怕的。
　　This has led to a hollowing- out syndrome: newspaper publishers and broadcasting station managers have realized they can cut the amount and quality of journalism, at least for a while, in order to raise profits. In case after case, the demands of Wall Street and the greed of investors have subsumed the “public trust” part of journalism. I don’t believe the First Amendment, which gives journalists valuable leeway to inquire and publish, was designed with corporate profits in mind. While we haven’t become a wholly cynical business yet, the trend is scary.

　　合并现象更是令人担忧。传媒公司都在不断结合，以形成更大型的资讯娱乐企业集团。这使得在很多时候，严肃的新闻报道和社会公信准则成为了受害者。以上就是造成目前的新闻工作存在很多遗漏的原因，而新的报道者群体，特别是平民记者们正在填补这样的空白领域。
　　Consolidation makes it even more worrisome. Media companies are merging to create ever larger information and entertainment conglomerates. In too many cases, serious journalism -and the public trust-continue to be victims. All of this leaves a journalistic opening, and new journalists-especially citizen journalists-are filling the gap.

　　当贪婪及合并之风嚣张之时，大媒霸们建立在传统模式之上的高利润也正在遭受着冲击。比如说，报社有两个主要的收入来源，一小部分来源于流通，即读者付钱订阅或者从报摊购买，不过，大部分的收入则是来源于刊登招聘及零售广告，可是eBay和craigslist这样的竞争对手却对此构成了威胁，前者更是世界上最大的分类广告网站，它在建立一种新的垄断的同时却专注于蝇头小利，根本不关心新闻报道的问题。
　　Meanwhile, even as greed and consolidation take their toll, those historically high margins are under attack.. Newspapers, for example, have two main revenue streams. The smaller by far comes from circulation: readers who pay to have the paper delivered at home or buy it from a newsstand. The larger is advertising, from employment classifieds to retail display ads, and every one of those ad revenue streams is under attack from competitors like eBay and craigslist, which can happily live on lower margins (or, as in the case of eBay, the world’s largest classified-advertising site, establish a new monopoly) and don’t care at all about journalism.

　　先抛开决策层人士的过分贪婪不说，长远来看，我可以很轻松的预测，这样一种商业模式将会解体，尽管它曾给予我丰厚的报酬，尽管它在很多重要的领域曾作出过许多令人尊敬的贡献。可是，如果目前的模式解体了，谁将去做大型的调查访问项目呢？当有权有势的利益集团企图压制人们披露真相的时候，谁能有那么多钱请得起价格昂贵的律师呢？如果没了拥有强大势力的新闻媒体，特别是像《华盛顿邮报》的卡撒林.格拉姆那样有足够的财力保障又道德立场坚定的人，那么谁与尼克松及他的党羽们对抗，谁来披露水门事件中的罪行呢？而且对普通人来说，还有谁敢于担当一个团体或社区的发言人了呢？我们也许该承认目前传媒事业运做模式的缺憾，但新闻业的无政府状态也不是解决问题的办法啊。
　　In the long term, I can easily imagine an unraveling of the business model that has rewarded me so well, and-despite the effect of excessive greed in too many executive suites-has managed to serve the public respectably in vital ways. Who will do big investigative projects, backed by deep pockets and the ability to pay expensive lawyers when powerful interests try to punish those who exposed them, if the business model collapses? Who would have exposed the Watergate crimes in the absence of powerful publishers, especially The Washington Post’s Katharine Graham, who had the financial and moral fortitude to stand up to Richard Nixon and his henchmen. At a more prosaic level, who will serve, for better or worse, as a principal voice of a community or region? Flawed as we may be in the business of journalism, anarchy in news is not my idea of a solution.