Ken – I agree completely on the whole media convergence thing. I think it’s much of the point that the author of the quote above tries to make in his article (well worth reading by the way, though it will take more than a sound-byte length of time to do so). And your conclusion is exactly why I don’t want to do things like 30-60 second commentaries – I think they give people a too superficial view of the topics I try to cover, lead them to expect something that’s completely different than what they’ll actually experience, and, at least for me, takes away from the written word. It sort of fits into the old “Did you read the book for class?’ “No, but I rented the movie.”

I enjoy your colorful observations about life, people, scenes and occasionally restaurants and food on Argentina. They’re quite interesting.

As far as writing work and little video vignettes, two words: media convergence. This is the theory that reporters should know how to work across different media so their paper, station or whatever can reach a wider audience. In this age of shrinking ad revenue at papers and magazines, this concept is literally seen by many in the business as a life raft.

I taught students in a recent journalism course about this, and many were dedicated to following the convergence path. I’m not a big supporter. I see the financial point, but I think it contributes to the dumbing down of society. Everyone expects the Cliff Notes version of things instead of any real substance that requires deep thought and focus. Heaven forbid!

Take it from a parish priest, you ain’t ever gonna please them all, and its always better to stay true to your muse.