Many of the traditional media providers that dominated the information scene in the past, at least those that have survived, used to be available primarily to local or regional audiences. Now everyone in the world can see the news from Seattle, Paris or Beijing. Not only that, for every traditional news outlet, there are many more offering different versions of the same story or reprinting and analyzing it. The paradigm of abundance of information leaves the consumer with the decision of which outlet to trust.
What drove news organizations in the past to release news quickly was the prospect of having another outlet do it first. These days, a wreck on a highway can be posted by a newspaper company before a radio station can report it. Or it can be a blogger who transmits the news. Organizations preparing in-depth journalism face the pressure of waiting too long to publish something. In response, some have had to find new ways to keep a story fresh while working on a long-term expose of an issue. Sometimes the need for information quickly means it goes through much less editing than it would have in the past, so mistakes are more common.
Traditional media outlets have all acquired skills in writing, audio and video, whereas they may have specialized in one previously. Websites for newspapers carry videos and some audio. Radio and television sites adopt the written word on their websites as part of their presentation. While no one reads a news story on a television or listens to or watches a video story in a newspaper, on websites a person can find all three forms.
Opportunities for customers to make their voices heard on issues were for a long time limited to whatever space or time traditional media outlets would offer. With comments sections on news sites, a reader or viewer can offer feedback immediately and at length. Communities can engage in a debate, complete with those who do or don't know what they are talking about and those who might just be there to stir things up.