We ran a story last week about one young man's opinion that journalism as we know it today is bordering on extinction because of its inability to deliver immediate news to a variety of handheld devices.

I would argue that the news industry is alive and will remain that way for precisely the same reason.

The fact is that a news story requires time and training that is incompatible with immediate delivery.

I have always been frustrated with television news coverage of a breaking event that mainly consists of anchors and reporters showing the same few images over and over and telling everyone that they really don't know what's going on. That has been broadcast media's way of balancing our desire for immediate news with the standards of journalism, which demand that professionals do not jump to conclusions, that they carefully research every aspect of the story before presenting it as news.

Where print journalism has securely carved its niche is in compensating for the weaknesses of broadcast journalism. On air, the stories demand images, and must be constrained to fit available time slots. In print, the story can be told completely without the need to supply graphics that may or may not add to the story itself.

Print journalism is the ideal when it comes to giving the public a complete, reliable and accurate report of important news stories. It is the ideal to which every news reporting organization should aspire. Instead, it seems, the growing trend is to lower our standards so that every goofball with a cell phone can become a "citizen journalist."

First of all, let's distinguish between "citizen journalists" and journalists who work for "The Citizen." We may not be the New York Times, but we do adhere to professional standards when it comes to reporting the news.

The CJs, as we will refer to them, don't even know what professional standards are, let alone follow them. While they are useful for capturing images in the absence of a trained professional, they cannot be trusted to tell the whole story in an accurate and unbiased manner. They don't know how.

To be fair, the problem with CJs is not unique to the electronic, internet, Twitter generation. There always have been people who can throw together a Web site or a newsletter that purports to report the news. These people do not even have to know how to spell, but they can represent themselves as reliable reporters of the news. That's if they really represent themselves at all, which many don't. Many, in fact, report in absolute anonymity.

And that's fine, as long as what you're reporting has to do with the next garden club meeting or the food drive at the church. But when you start "reporting" hard news -- or even worse, editorializing -- your credentials -- and your name -- better be right out there for everyone to see.

Because accountability is also a major part of the journalism profession. How can you trust news reported by a nameless, faceless entity that may or may not have an axe to grind? Or one with a user name like "fncygrl289" or "fluffysdada"?

I have read "news" reports from internet "news" agencies that are so poorly written, and so inaccurate as to basic facts, that it is clear that they have sacrificed the mainstay of journalism -- its reliability -- for speed, and we, the consumers of news, pay the price. We risk becoming a nation even more uneducated and misinformed than we are today.

I am a person who enjoys getting most of my news from electronic sources, and my Kindle hasn't been far out of my reach for two years. But in the interest of getting the real story, I'm willing to wait a bit longer for my news if that's what it takes -- and clearly, that's what it takes.