What does the TechCrunch-Forbes spat mean for the future of journalism?

By now, we know all too well that journalism has changed and evolved by leaps and bounds in recent years with the advent of blogs, Twitter feeds and the like. We know how to approach reporters differently than we would even just a year or two ago. This is nothing new. 

But what is new is the way editors are approaching content. Journalists on staff are stretched so thin -- covering multiple beats that span different technologies, business segments, etc. (This is an issue in and of itself, but that's a post for another time...) Given how tightly and leanly publishing houses run today vs. years' past, editors are being forced to think differently -- as in, well beyond their on-staff journalists to freelancers and contributors...and (*gasp*) to vendors.

Yes, the dreaded "v" word.

While contributed content and bylined articles have long been a mainstay within technology and vertical trades, very rarely, if at all, has this extended to mainstream business publications.

Until recently.

The TechCrunch-Forbes Spat

Cue TechCrunch's scathing critique of Forbes' new editor Lewis Dvorkin and his decision to open Forbes to guest blog posts outside of their regular staff of paid freelancers and contributors. Paul Carr's view is that this decision is the death of Forbes:

Not only will this new breed of hacks add thousands of pages of self-promotional, unedited (Forbes simply doesn’t have the resources to monitor thousands of contributors) drivel to Forbes.com but, by lowering the barrier to entry to anyone with a keyboard, the publication will also scare away those top tier contributors – captains of industry, statesmen and the like – who are prepared to pen a free article for Forbes just for the kudos that comes from being asked.

My view? This isn't quite as scary as TechCrunch is portraying it. If Carr's fear is that Forbes literally is going to allow any Joe Schmoe off the streets post content to Forbes.com, he's wrong. From recent experience placing one of our clients' experts here as a guest blogger, Forbes' editorial team does indeed review each guest blog that is submitted, editing the content as needed (for accuracy and neutrality, only) to fit within Forbes' editorial standards. So - his point that "anyone with a keyboard" will be published on Forbes.com doesn't hold weight.

The Editorial Standards Debate

The bigger issue that Carr raises, though, is this: is this the new advent of journalism? The "decentralized journalism" approach - one, large body of journalists versus a small, highly centralized body of journalists? And if so, what does this mean for editorial standards going forward?

While I'd agree that editorial standards are at potential risk for lowered standards if more business publications allow for a certain level of 'citizen journalism' than in previous years without proper editorial standards put into in place, I certainly don't agree that this is the death of journalism as we know it (or of Forbes in this case). This is just another step in what has become an entirely new journalistic style. Quite honestly, I find it interesting that TechCrunch - a blog, of all things - is finding fault with Forbes, a traditional business publication by my definition, for opening up the Kimono to guest bloggers. Isn't this very shift from traditional media and traditional journalism to the more open, web 2.0 approach what's made TechCrunch the influential powerhouse that it is today? 

What do you think?  Is this just another case of TechCrunch being quick to slam old line media properties or does its critique have merit?