On Jul 9, 2009, at 3:08 PM, Doyle Saylor wrote:
In effect, the old shop of a newspaper, magazine, radio station, et al, don't meet the demand for better community input.
Oh the community. I've heard that so many times around Pacifica I could scream. The community is a vague and undefinable thing. Most people in the broadcast or print audience don't really know all that much about what's going on. "Community input" sounds nice but it's an absolutely empty concept.
One can see that in the evolution toward reality tv, and talk radio. Social sights like for example facebook provide better connection processes and undermine information that is isolated in some sense of the old media product.
You've got to be kidding. Facebook status updates consist mostly of inane reports of daily life ("I need coffee!" "I just steamed some sugar snap peas." - actual quotes from my FB friends), or reposts of material produced by professional journalists. The amount of amateur or "community" information production approaches zero.
To summarize a huge increase in production has sent the price down of old media. The social aspects of that product are not adequate. The culture is moving relentlessly toward a producing information that is more and more social networked.
Wow. And you said Gladwell was "superficial," "more slogan than substance"? Funny.
The question of who pays for that is something else entirely. The loss of old media jobs is not about 'free', it's about the rise of internet information production.
The Internet produces very little original information. It's a medium of distribution, not production.
Doug _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
