I remember when "convergence" was a big, new part of the marketplace of ideas.  Naturally, I thought that with Internet Revolution II now firmly on its way, this convergence concept had been generally accepted.

I was wrong.

On Jim Romenesko's media news blog, something of a debate has errupted about the value of the convergence of media formats -- essentially, the marrying of print, broadcast and online media.  It began with a column by Edward Wasserman, a journalism ethics professor at Washington and Lee University, and continued with a rebuttal by Tom Fiedler, executive editor of the Miami Herald.

Wasserman wrote: 

It would be too bad if the elders of the news business decided that the way to apply the marvels of the Internet to their operations was by a bold new push for reporting that's hasty, fragmented and half-baked. It would be even worse if redirecting newsrooms to online news ended up by degrading the working conditions of journalists and diverting energies away from the kind of richly detailed, thoughtful reporting that exemplifies the best in journalism. 

Such are the dangers of the so-called converged newsroom. That's the term for a state-of-the-art operation where journalists step nimbly from one distribution technology to another, writing or producing for newspaper deadlines, affiliated TV or radio stations and, above all, a website. Few print reporters are eager to become helpmates to TV news, which they regard as entertainment programming. But it's the insertion, deep within the country's newsrooms, of the Internet's round-the-clock publishing cycle that threatens the greatest harm to the quality of news and information we receive.

Fiedler responded via e-mail to Wasserman's questioning of covergence:

He concluded by saying that the trend toward converged newsrooms is being guided by "techies, the brand managers, the publishers, the marketers. When do we hear from the professional journalists?"

Yikes. And here I've been pushing -- enthusiastically -- for just such a newsroom, all the while thinking of myself as a professional journalist. But today, having slept (uncomfortably) on Ed's argument, I have come to this conclusion: Professor Wasserman had an off day. He's spent too much time lately in his Virginia classroom recounting journalistic history and not enough time in newsrooms plotting journalism's future.

Now, I don't know either Wasserman or Fiedler personally -- and as I believe convergence is demand-driven, it's tempting to say the whole debate is a bit academic.

However, the fact that it strikes a nerve suggests something bigger at work here.  I think it is this: Professional journalists, particularly those trained in my era and earlier, have always had a distinct dislike of the "business" side of their business.  To the extent that convergence smacks of commerce, it is generally seen as a negative. 

However, for those journalists who grew up in Internet Revolutions I or II, I believe the use of online media platforms seems utterly natural and proper.  To them, convergence is seen as a very good thing indeed.

For communicators, it is important to realize there is still some tension around these issues.  Some reporters and editors will embrace new-media efforts, while others will be resistent.  Others, still, will be interested but need some education.

If you're pitching an idea that has to do with new media platforms -- podcasts, for example, be aware that you may get very different reactions within the very same newsrooms.