Every day I read about another round of layoffs and buyouts in the newspaper industry and it now seems clear that these jobs are never coming back even when the economy does.

What are journalism professors telling their students these days? It's no longer "work hard and you'll get a job at a major metropolitan newspaper fighting for truth, justice and the American way." (OK, I loved the Clark Kent character and Superman).

We're in a new information age and it's still unclear how this will influence public opinion on many critical issues of the day. While we have more access to information than ever before, we can't always be sure that what we are reading is fact or fiction or something in between. We can longer rely on the daily newspaper to get "all the news that's fit to print" just as we can no longer rely on the evening news to take us on in-depth photographic journeys to other continents that explain how people and governments live and work.

I love sites like Twitter and Facebook for some doses of my news appetite just like the many news sites and blogs that keep me informed 24/7. I like being able to customize my news with wire services, dailies, trade publications and blogs. But it's also a lot more work to stay on top of the deluge of information.

The loss of so many talented and veteran beat reporters to the economy, many who spent decades plying their trade, is a loss for all of us who want to better understand the complex issues we all face in our local communities, nationally and internationally.

Yes, the Internet has made the world smaller and allowed information to reach us all faster. We should be better informed than any generation in history. I can only hope that today's Twitterers, bloggers, podcasters, citizen reporters and Facebook commentators take some lessons from the great traditions of journalism.

From the early days of journalism, being objective and getting to the truth were the pillars of the profession. As we entered the 20th Century, most people had only one media outlet they depended on for the "facts" -- usually their daily newspaper, and later, the radio and the evening news. Walter Cronkite, for example, was one of the most trusted people in America. And you had to be one heckuva reporter and writer to make it to a major daily newspaper. Journalism was glamerous and exciting and we've seen that in Hollywood's portrayals of newspaper people.

The world has changed dramatically from those romantic days of Citizen Kane through All the President's Men. Like millions of others, I'm enjoying the technology and access to all the information that fits onto my computer screen and hard drive. 

Today, we combine information from multiple sources and assess what's truth and what's fiction. We've mastered quantity of information. I'm just hoping we all stay committed to quality information.

More law firms are beginning to understand the reputation issues involved in making these awful annoucements -- and one major firm even jumped the gun by going public and saying something to the effect that "by the end of today we will be terminating X amount of attorneys and staff." As much as I advocate for getting the bad news out early, it struck me as insensitive and wondered what people in that firm had to be thinking sitting at their desk that morning and wondering if they would get a pink slip.

It's always best to talk internally first about any difficult issue before going to the media. But the Internet and certain legal blogs have changed the rules of the game. Memos from the Executive Committee announcing layoffs are constantly showing up on influential legal blogs, often before everyone in the firm has opened their electronic mailboxes.

It's better for law firms to be more accessible about the state of their respective economies, if only because if they are not, the media will usually find out and then take control of the story. And that can often bring additional harm to a law firm's reputation.

Timing a layoff announcement is tricky...hold off and you run the strong risk of it getting leaked and  the firm losing control of the message and the story. Put it out early or on a certain day...and the firm might be the only firm with a layoff announcement that day, thereby making it a larger story instead of being included in a "roundup" piece that includes many other firms with similar announcements.

Either way, firms must be able to clearly explain why the layoffs were necessary, be sensitive in every way to the hurt feelings of those let go, and reassure clients that the firm remains strong for the future.

The Legal Marketing Association has invited me to lead a webinar on Crisis Communications and Web 2.0.

It's set for 2 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. ET on Wednesday, January 21st, 2009.

Details are at the link below.

http://tinyurl.com/5tquol

Update from Larry Bodine (November 17, 2008):

I sincerely apologize for the crude and offensive "Elevator Pitch" post I put online last week.  In the clear light of morning, it is clear that it was anti-Semitic and repellent.  I want to thank all the people who commented and called me about it; I listened and took what you said to heart.

I have deleted the post.  It was a mistake to repeat a crude joke that I heard in rural Illinois, and I should have known better. It was a worse mistake to say it was the "best" of its kind, when actually it was hideous.

The post offended people I admire and hold near. I certainly don't espouse the kind of thinking behind the obnoxious "elevator pitch" and don't want anyone to think I do. A friend called me, recounting how he heard a Holocaust survivor describe being evaluated by Dr. Mengele in a concentration camp, but was fortunate to be passed over.  I was horrified and immediately deleted the blog post.  A member of my own family was captured in the Second World War and imprisoned in a Russian concentration camp until the 1950s, and there was nothing funny about it.

I regret I didn't delete it sooner, and should have had the good sense not to put it online in the first place.

My colleague, Larry Bodine, who I have often praised in this space and elsewhere, seems to think it's funny that a partner uses references to a Nazi medical researcher in his "elevator speech."

He described it as the best elevator speech he ever heard.

Not only is this not funny, but it's an affront to the six million Jews murdered and the millions of others killed or maimed by Nazis. Unfortunately, another colleague of mine -- Carolyn Elefant of Law.com -- also wrote about this but failed to treat it with the harsh criticism it deserved.

Lawyers shouldn't have to resort to Nazi imagery or any other kind of anti-Semitic or racist remarks to get attention. If they do, prospects should look elsewhere for legal help.

The Holocaust was not a joke.