Even a casual observer can tell that media is changing. The way we get information – not to mention the way we read it — is undergoing one of the most dramatic changes since old Johannes Gutenberg developed his printing press back in 1440. How do I feel about this? I’m curious more than anything.

There’s another change afoot as well. This one, however, is disheartening: It’s the constant recycling of information. Now granted, some of this is inevitable. All major media outlets receive the same press releases from the same companies. Some news is just so cut-and-dried straightforward that there are limited ways to write about it.

But if you’ve ever tried to research something, whether for business or of a more personal nature, you know exactly what I’m talking about here. Pick a topic, any topic — try cloud computing, cap and trade, how to make frosted gingerbread cookies, even the best way to plant garlic in Wisconsin (all topics, by the way, that I’ve researched this past month) — and you will find the same information over and over again.

I’m not talking in a general sense. Often, it’s word-for-word recycling.

Copyright issues aside, it makes me question what has become of us as writers as well as readers. I know part of this is due to across-the-board staff cuts of writers and journalists at magazines, newspapers and online information sources. Anyone can also go to a free online blogging site and, in a few key strokes, call themselves a writer. There’s one thing to be an expert at a specific topic, but expertise doesn’t always mean that you can write clearly, concisely and with original thoughts, not to mention creatively.

So what’s the solution? Do a little easy research yourself and hijack the information. If you’ve majored in writing or journalism, by the way, it’s pounded into you that such an approach is not only unethical, but lazy.

This past month, I received two solicitations via email. One was to become a “guest contributor” at a new media web site. The other was to offer me, a “traditional journalist,” the opportunity to still be a “credible source” in avoiding “pseudo news” online. I’m guessing that the sheer volume of out-of-work writers and journalists out there probably means that the response rate to these offers is, unfortunately, pretty good.

I have to give both companies credit for their chutzpah as well as their very interesting business models. As a hired “credible source” I would get paid based on the number of hits my writing would receive on this particular portal.

And wow, what a sweet deal this is. I can make $100,000 on a single posting … that is, if I get 10 million hits within 15 days of posting new content. On the low end, the incentive payment starts with a mere 1,000 hits, in which case I would make a whopping .25 cents.

The other site uses a different approach. There, volume is key and the more 200-word “articles” I would write, the more I would make, albeit pennies at a time. (Just for comparison sake, this column roughly runs 550 words each month.)

My point in all of this is that, as editor of this magazine, I can confidently pledge to you that we try our hardest not to recycle or to go for quantity over quality.

Are we still in the Stone Age on this one? Some days, I think we are. And that’s not such a bad thing.

By Laurie Arendt

Laurie Arendt is editor of CRW. She can be reached at crweditor@crwmag.com