Comments on: Digging Mainstream Media’s Grave http://davestechsupport.com/blog/2007/12/09/digging-mainstream-medias-grave/ A Third Eye on Technology Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:05:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: david_steinlage http://davestechsupport.com/blog/2007/12/09/digging-mainstream-medias-grave/comment-page-1/#comment-9 david_steinlage Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:13:58 +0000 http://davestechsupport.com/blog/2007/12/09/digging-mainstream-medias-grave/#comment-9 The alternative is nothing more than just that: An alternative. To be used along side every other media source you choose to sample when taking in information about current events. A majority of the stuff that ends up on digg isn’t material written and gathered by nobodies, but actual stories published in reputable news papers or sources like the Associated Press. And stories that aren’t so much out of the spotlight of what you usually see from your local news broadcast or local news paper, and likely not included with the national news you prefer because there probably isn’t enough time to include it with the rest of the 22 minute long show with 8 minutes of commercials, or something close to that. So what you’re seeing is a filter of the mainstream that has life, human interaction and feedback elements. In other words, sites like digg aren’t to be considered THE source for information, but an augmentation of already available sources from a very very broad spectrum of media. And people judge it in all different ways; it’s the beauty of reading through 200 or 1000 comments in response to a popular posts. Often the controversial stories are the ones that get the most response, and more importantly, user feedback about the stories, or the issues the stories bring up. So it’s a very motivational conversation starter. People see what is already out there, then get a chance to vote for the most important or most entertaining (”BEST”, in other words) of what’s out there, and then talk about why they voted for it; defend why the voted for it. It’s very interesting to watch and is a teaching experience for some. The alternative is nothing more than just that: An alternative. To be used along side every other media source you choose to sample when taking in information about current events. A majority of the stuff that ends up on digg isn’t material written and gathered by nobodies, but actual stories published in reputable news papers or sources like the Associated Press. And stories that aren’t so much out of the spotlight of what you usually see from your local news broadcast or local news paper, and likely not included with the national news you prefer because there probably isn’t enough time to include it with the rest of the 22 minute long show with 8 minutes of commercials, or something close to that. So what you’re seeing is a filter of the mainstream that has life, human interaction and feedback elements.

In other words, sites like digg aren’t to be considered THE source for information, but an augmentation of already available sources from a very very broad spectrum of media. And people judge it in all different ways; it’s the beauty of reading through 200 or 1000 comments in response to a popular posts. Often the controversial stories are the ones that get the most response, and more importantly, user feedback about the stories, or the issues the stories bring up. So it’s a very motivational conversation starter. People see what is already out there, then get a chance to vote for the most important or most entertaining (”BEST”, in other words) of what’s out there, and then talk about why they voted for it; defend why the voted for it. It’s very interesting to watch and is a teaching experience for some.

]]> By: Bob http://davestechsupport.com/blog/2007/12/09/digging-mainstream-medias-grave/comment-page-1/#comment-7 Bob Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:45:11 +0000 http://davestechsupport.com/blog/2007/12/09/digging-mainstream-medias-grave/#comment-7 The danger I see in the "digg.com" approach to "media" (a word so overused that it has become cliche) is the reporters themselves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but journalism is still an offered major in many public and private universities in this country. Most of their graduates expect to be able to work in their chosen fields as responsible members of 'the media'. Who do you suggest that they approach when looking for an apprenticeship, CNN or digg.com? Then, having spent a reasonable amount of time as an apprentice, who then should they go to in search of their next step up the ladder? Obviously, the major news organization are not without bias and/or pressure to squash stories that might be harmful to a sponsor, but is it better to rely on a media source made up of lay people who may or may not have their own axes to grind? Face it, politics will always be part and parcel to communications... the Bush administration has relied on that fact for the past eight years, God knows, but the alternative, to me, is even scarier. Just my opinion... The danger I see in the “digg.com” approach to “media” (a word so overused that it has become cliche) is the reporters themselves. Correct me if I’m wrong, but journalism is still an offered major in many public and private universities in this country. Most of their graduates expect to be able to work in their chosen fields as responsible members of ‘the media’. Who do you suggest that they approach when looking for an apprenticeship, CNN or digg.com? Then, having spent a reasonable amount of time as an apprentice, who then should they go to in search of their next step up the ladder?

Obviously, the major news organization are not without bias and/or pressure to squash stories that might be harmful to a sponsor, but is it better to rely on a media source made up of lay people who may or may not have their own axes to grind? Face it, politics will always be part and parcel to communications… the Bush administration has relied on that fact for the past eight years, God knows, but the alternative, to me, is even scarier.

Just my opinion…

]]>