The Internet, the News Ecosystem and the Rational Ignorant fool.

• In addition to aggregation, there's a multiplication of comment and assessment. You can just as easily find lots of people who have read all the coverage , with either an exacting or a highly-opinionated eye, and who are therefore in at least as good a position to figure out what the coverage means as you are yourself. (With respect to figuring out what's actually going on, however, it would be more accurate to say that they are in no worse position to figure out than you are yourself, because everyone is entirely dependent on the uncertain value of the actual reporting.)

• But in that world of superabundant commentary as well as instant aggregation of all available primary reporting, there will also be an immensely greater flow of available primary sources confirming the primary reporting, as real-time government and industrial data feeds you can subscribe to by RSS and equivalent protocols explosively mutiply. So what becomes scarce is judgement, which is the resource for which people will pay.

• That's parallel to the development of all professional careers: it is in the end, a matter of people's willingness to pay for your judgment. So professional judgment becomes the value in the enterprise, as cognitive alertness is for a copyeditor.

• If you take this analysis slightly further you get to the heart of the matter. Their business was buying commodity information and adding advertising, thus making a retail product. Advertisers no longer need them, however, because they can push only where the eyeballs are, and when they associate themselves with pull media, they reach people who are likely to be interested, and when they associate themselves with search they are reaching the best prospects of all: the people who are already looking. (You see a piece of this in diagnosing the problem of cartelizing local media, which no longer are reaching people already looking for what they provide, which is the news of right here. Microjournalism, written by local people of good judgment based on their review of all the subscribable narrowcast feeds affecting their neighbors, is the future after the local newspaper. Since it doesn't have to buy newsprint, run printers, or distribute a product, it can support the microjournalist who writes it without an advertising income.) So the advertisers are abandoning the newspapers young people will never acquire the habit of reading, which is not a problem for reporters with good judgment, just a problem for all the people whose association with newspapers was what was wrong with newspapers.

• Actually, we all rely on other judgment than our own to some degree, and most people would rather rely on judgment which is loud, fake and unrealistic than on judgment that has nuance and is complex to understand. Hence societies are governed, as all institutions are, by bullshit and fairy tales.

The role out of Data.gov by the Obama administration represents the services of a digital news ecosystem that allow citizens to be engaged and not just informed. This is certainly a dramatic change for the way things have been done. Instead of an average citizen waiting for the news delivery each morning or night — i.e. waiting for a newsman to tell them what to think and how to think — people will have to think about and look at the facts for themselves.

• No have to. But will be able to. This isn't "the Obama Administration," any more than adoption of cars by the federal government was "the Harding Administration." Government is beginning to do what everyone is beginning to do: move beyond the "Web as some new kind of channelized television" model to an understanding of the Net as built from trillions of specialized subscribable dataflows that are the content of our new superorganism's nervous systems. So anyone can learn anything and report a judgment to anyone else who wants to be informed of that judgment's occurrence. The "thinking for yourself" paradigm has to be reconsidered: for some purposes it is precisely diametrically wrong: the value of the net is in having the very wisest people on earth thinking for you.

• This preceding paragraph is wooly. The preceding transition is abrupt; you need more clarity within the graf and in relation to the context.

Authoritarian regimes have already developed sophisticated methods for pushing back on the Internet, see China, Iran, and Russia. The U.S. and other democracies are frankly not that far behind.

• "Pushing back" is a poor metaphor. They want to make specific design modifications in the network structure of their portion of the superorganism, but they cannot afford to isolate themselves entirely. They can use state control of telecommunications to attempt filtration at the boundary, but pervasive encryption technology increasingly thwarts that effort. Proxy-servers outside their control pretty much assure that anyone intelligent and determined can receive and transmit anything to the world at large. The Chinese intensively employ human judgment and monitoring to control many-to-many realtime and threaded human interactions in the net, which means they ultimately require someone to act as an official censor in every online community. They cannot employ voluntarism to manufacture unfreedom as we can to manufacture freedom, so they are compelled to an eternal drain of resources making enough unfreedom to keep under control the freedom we manufacture for free. Our strategy is to drive up their costs by helping people to want to be free.

• This is not actually a conclusion, just a rhetorical flourish. You should put here something that appeals to the reader's intellectual curiosity, not merely the taste for mild anti-popular irony.

• Overall, a very good start. One more revision and you should be getting close.