I’m with Howard Owens on this one:

“Lately, it seems like every day Romenesko has a link to a cranky old traditional journalist complaining about how newspapers are giving away their content online.

My question for Jim Romenesko: How come we never see the counter arguments highlighted in your blog?”

For real. Even reporters and editors who couldn’t tell you the difference between RSS and the IRS fire up their browsers at least once a day to get their Romenesko fix. That the bulk of what they see there on the future of newspapers seems to be of the turn-back-the-clock variety only reinforces their bad ideas.

So Howard gets his link today, but all it says is “Request granted. Here’s your link.” Immediately to the right of that as I look at the site now? A link to a Charlotte Magazine story that casts an incredibly negative eye on, of all things, efforts to get reporters at McClatchy’s Raleigh and Charlotte papers to work together. The story’s kicker:

“The problem is, they may be swimming against the tide. It starts with collaboration in the name of efficiency. Then the Web site, an inherently shallow medium, becomes the dominant news vehicle. And when the county puts a dump down the street from your house and you don’t realize it until it’s built? Well, then we’ll know.”

An inherently shallow medium? (At least that explains why Charlotte Magazine’s web site is so awful.) Sorry, dude, but print can’t hold a candle to the web when it comes to depth. For example, the magazine story mentions several times the Observer’s great work on home mortgages and foreclosures. If anyone can show me anything in print that went as deep as the interactive map that accompanied the story online, I’ll order a subscription to Charlotte Magazine.

And, just because I can’t resist, maybe Charlotte Magazine Editor Richard Thurmond can explain how The Washington Post’s Congressional votes database is inherently shallow compared to print. Then he can get started replicating it on paper.