Old media new media
There are lots of new media types who snigger and mock as we old media types stumble around trying to make sense of newfangled ways of communicating. Many confidently predict our slow demise. I am not so sure.
In evidence, I would cite the success of the PM blog. It has already spawned a , there is even a song.
It really has established itself as of the web rather than just on the web. You do not have to take my word for it. Ask the .
It works because it has given some of the 3.65 million people who listen to PM a platform to meet each other and has made listening a shared community experience. It is something radio, with its natural intimacy, is uniquely positioned to deliver.
I read in the that some of the most successful blogs are becoming businesses or are being assimilated into the established media and that some bloggers are forming associations with ethics codes and standards of conduct to bolster their credibility. Who's catching up with who here?
Comments
But Peter, the big divide between 'broadcast' and 'narrowcast' - or blogging - is that you corporate guys are supposedly accountable to standards rather wider than just those driven by legal decency benchmarks. You actually need to be seen to be right - by the majority! Blogging is a low risk, minority game that some people (like me?) spend recreational time on - when we might be doing aerobic exercise for cardiovascular advantages! What is said (assuming it conforms to the requisite AUP,) by a blogger is going to be as influential as the blogger is erudite, communicative and populist! There is no proportionality in what I say - it's what I feel. It would be very worrying if my outpourings swayed anything more than an eyebrow - and any reaction to be more than a mouse-click!
Blogging - as representative of a population (even of bloggers!) is wholly unreliable, IMHO!
PeeVeeAh, I am interested in your opinion. I'm not sure whether we bloggers/participants should feel a bit deflated by some of your comments (generalisations) about bloggers - you said:
鈥淚t would be very worrying if my outpourings swayed anything more than an eyebrow - and any reaction to be more than a mouse-click!鈥
I believe that the things blog participants say do have an affect in the broader public conversation. That's not to say that their opinions will be documented in history as a great moment in time but they are certainly part of the conversation about social conditions. I'm wondering if talkback radio or the conversations we have in our neighbourhoods have any effect in the grand scheme of things 鈥 how are blog conversations different to those?
I believe participants here express their opinions knowing they are in a public space and knowing that their information is being considered in many ways by many others. I suspect you probably agree with that 鈥 correct me if I鈥檓 wrong. What do others think?
One more thing, briefly, I think that the picture on the PM site of the bikes in Amsterdam is very relevant to global politics. Governments around the world are forming environmental/public works (roads etc)/public and private transport policies. That picture has the potential to generate lots of different discussions from around the world. I wonder how diverse the various policies are. Is anyone talking or do they think, what's the use - no one's listening because I'm not a journalist therefore what I say doesn't count? I鈥檇 love to hear other opinions.
Peter - aren't you using new media with *traditional journalistic values*?
I think (a broad generalisation) new media and old media have a lot to learn from each other.
Feeding-back to DM's comments: We - the greater blogger - are just a research source, at best. Other than the decency constraints, we are unaccountable for the text we spew out here. That's very evident by some responses - not by you and not necessarily on this thread! But blogging is a big and rather coarse 'net(!) - and catches only the puffed-up types who feel a need to say something! It isn't a democratic instrument - and the samples are statistically minimal and skewed. :-/
I'm sure it constitutes a large part of the 'conversation' on some high-profile topics, but the actual statistics of opinions are what I doubt.
I think - at best - the research data acquired here should not form part of governmental moves, in itself. If I seem self-deprecating(!) it's because I'm concerned about decision-makers weighting this kind of presentation too heavily, because - lets face it - it would be pretty 'cheap' research!