Because you're reading this on a screen and not a piece of paper, you've probably noticed the changes in the way we get our news. The impact and influence of newspapers, radio and television has been diminishing as more and more of us rely on the Internet for instantaneous updates.

A lot of factors are converging — right now — to cement that tectonic shift.

I was thinking about this last Friday as first word started coming in that Michael Jackson had been rushed to the hospital. Where did that news come from? The Associated Press? CNN? The Los Angeles Times?

Nope. It was TMZ.com , the Hollywood gossip Web site that relayed the shocking development to its global online audience while "traditional" media sources scrambled to confirm the details.

TMZ was also first to report the death of the King of Pop. And for its speedy, accurate reporting, TMZ earned the respect of its more established competitors.

I'm thinking that this nontraditional coverage of Michael Jackson's death — combined with a number of other factors — could make the year 2009 as significant to the way news is covered as was the year 1963.

Every time I walk into WFAA's Communications Center, I am mindful of that fateful November day when Channel 8 broke into regular programming to provide viewers with a breathless, first-person account of the gunfire that struck down John F. Kennedy in Dealey Plaza just a few blocks from our studio. The shocking news was followed by an unprecedented weekend of non-stop television coverage as a nation mourned.

This tragic event is widely regarded as a turning point in establishing television's supremacy as the primary mass medium.

A lot has changed in 45 years, not the least of which is how technology has democratized newsgathering.

When I started as a photojournalist in 1975, my film camera weighed about 40 pounds and required a "body pod" to support its weight when hand-held. A bright, portable light (with a heavy battery belt) was needed to shoot indoors and — of course — I couldn't broadcast what I shot until I developed the film, about a 20-minute process.

And television gear wasn't just bulky; it was expensive! Anyone contemplating independent TV journalism would need to spend thousands of dollars for a minimal camera setup; and then you'd have to find someone willing to broadcast your work.

Fast forward to January 15 of this year: US Airways Flight 1549 splashes down in the Hudson River. As passengers are being plucked from the floating jetliner, Janis Krums uses TwitPic to flash a dramatic photo of the mid-river scene direct from his cell phone.

Last month, it was election protests in Iran that focused international attention on these "citizen journalists." The government placed international reporters under severe restrictions as thousands of Iranians flooded the streets in bloody confrontations with security forces. The conflict was documented by hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Iranians and their cell phones, with compelling minute-by-minute accounts posted to Twitter and Facebook.

Mobile phones don't cost thousands of dollars; some are even "free" with a contract. All are capable of sending short text messages; almost all of them have serviceable still cameras and can also shoot video clips.

The most significant aspect of this evolution in journalism, however, is that you don't have to have the key to a television or radio station to broadcast your information to a limited area. These unfiltered dispatches — from a floating jetliner or a Tehran street corner — are instantly posted to Web sites that anyone in the world can access.

Is this real journalism? While most of it is totally unfiltered and unedited for accuracy, it's not going away. Traditional newsgathering organizations (including WFAA) are slowly beginning to embrace the power of these sources by making it easier for viewers, listeners and readers to share their thoughts, photos and video clips.

You can easily send us pictures and video clips, and they are regularly used on the air.

In case you were wondering, I still think the world needs "traditional" journalists, perhaps more than ever — people who can judge the credibility of sources and create a balanced, accurate and trusted presentation.

But ordinary people, armed with cell phones, are at the vanguard of a revolution in journalism — one that has positive implications for democracy as Americans celebrate their independence.

E-mail wzwirko@wfaa.com