Often this means (gasp!) giving the news away for free. Will this remove the incentive for people to actually buy the paper? Perhaps, for some readers. But, if newspapers keep the breaking news online and offer more in-depth analysis in their print editions, perhaps both platforms will retain enough value to encourage knowledge-hungry readers to follow both the print and online editions.

News on demand
While the Internet allows newspapers to publish news as it happens, it's not just a one-way communication device. Readers can now interact with journalists in real-time, as the first commenter on Election Night did with me. The reader wanted information that I wasn't originally planning on posting. But I was able to provide it on-demand, once I knew there was a need for it.

When readers have questions about local events, journalists can get them the answers. It's what we're paid to do. We have time, expertise and access to sources, so we can give readers the information they want, and usually when they want it.

It's a bit like the collaborative site Yahoo! Answers, with one critical exception. Instead of drawing on a community of anonymous self-proclaimed experts, newspapers depend on reporters who have to take credit (or blame) for their work. We journalists live and die by our reputation for delivering reliable, accurate and fair information.

Homegrown punditry
Newspapers have long had a tradition of publishing letters to the editor. These often contain thesis statements with some evidence and logical arguments to back them up.

Online comments have a different feel. They remind me more of the off-the-cuff, stream-of-consciousness infotainment you get from cable news network pundits. The difference is, the self-appointed pundits on community newspaper Web sites are ordinary people.

They might mix in substantial portions of hyperbole and unsubstantiated "facts" among their talking points. But from this roiling stew of chatter and gossip, you can sometimes glean some common sense answers to the problems facing our communities.

If nothing else, people seem to have a good time debating the local issues of the day. For many, following the online water-cooler banter is addictive, harmless fun.

Meeting the newsmakers
For a handful of brave public officials, such as Hutchinson's mayor and several of its School Board members, our newspaper Web site can provide a direct avenue of communication with their constituents.

Some officials seem averse to the anonymous and often freewheeling nature of online discourse. But I believe that by engaging the cyber-saavy portion of the electorate on their own terms, community leaders perform a vital service.

The newsmakers and leaders in our communities ought to have a clear sense of what people are saying and feeling about the decisions they make. As a neutral, unbiased party, the newspaper seems like the ideal meeting ground for hashing out these concerns.

This form of discussion works especially well in a small town. I suspect, or at least hope, that elected and appointed officials in small communities have a strong sense of their local roots. On a national scale, I don't think that sense is there. I can't see, say, Defense Secretary Robert Gates hopping into a newspaper Web site's chat room to find out what folks in Podunk think about national security.