Who will host the conversation?

[Pat Coyle]

Smoosier, Bruce Hetrick wrote a nice piece on social media for IBJ Today in which he describes his personal awakening to the value (and challenges) of blogging and social media...read full article here...

So what do you think? Social media is clearly changing the way people connect and the way ideas are spread and discussed...can traditional media remain at the center of the conversation?

[Pat Coyle]

I really appreciate your candor, Bruce. You've got a well-established brand as a top-notch communicator in this marketplace, and your story will resonate with others who are similarly successful, but who have not yet awakened to the power of social media. Thanks for writing the article and bringing it to my attention.

Regarding the question posed in this thread, it seems to me that traditional media, like newspapers, are doing the right thing by opening their inbound lines of communication. But I don't think their business models will allow them to take full advantage of the Web. In the traditional world, the "media" is distinct from the "audience". Online, the "media" IS the "audience" and vice versa. Online communities and conversations don't take kindly to CENTRALIZED, top-down, command-and-control models. The conversation is EVERYWHERE and cannot be contained on just one site.

It'll be interesting to see, for example, which site generates more back-and-forth about your article. The host media? Or Smaller Indiana?

[Lorraine Ball]

I really enjoyed Bruce's column, as my journey' t the internet was similar to his. A novice 18 months ago, I am a full fledged social media junkie today.

But there was one comment in his article I disagree with:
There’s much lament these days about the demise of mainstream media—the socalled fourth estate. What will we do with fewer professional watchdogs looking over the shoulder of big government and big business?

I don't think we need professional watchdogs anymore. We have thousands and thousands of amateurs - who can't be bought, or manipulated. And the collective ability to uncover the truth by sharing information and pooling resources will eventually prove to be significantly stronger then one influential journalist.

[Hazel "The Queen" Walker]

I believe we do need professional watchdogs but I do not think that they have the ability to do much more than let the world know what is going on.

After all the watch dogs let the mortgage market continue it's bad practice of lending, and no one stopped it. They keep reporting on the abuse of government spending, and nothing really happens.

Social Networks have the power to spread the word and hold people accountable. We have the ability to influence elections and public opinion.

Social Networks have to be careful too, there will come a point when people are just as jaded by the bad information that comes from blogger and other sites as they are with mainstream press. There are too many hoaxes and unfounded gossip that passes around as truth on the internet.

[Ken Owen]

Hello to all from a new member, and thanks to Sir Bruce for stimulating this discussion.

As someone who spent two decades in the news biz, I was in the trenches when editorial decisions were increasingly made with an eye toward building an audience (as we started getting overnight ratings each and every day). The focus became less about building an audience the old-fashioned way -- over time and by being consistent and honest -- and more about goosing up quarter hours by sending the helicopter over "breaking news" du jour (usually a jarheaded teen driving the wrong way on I-65 or something equally important to the future of our civilization). "We brought it to you first" would scream the day-after promos; "We got it right" seemed to fade in importance with each passing sweeps period.

The mainstream media helped make itself moot by pandering. When did Britney Spears latest hiccup become the stuff of headlines? And now, if we care about such things, we don't have to wait for the 10 p.m. newscast or tomorrow's paper -- there's a full color shot of her arrest/haircut/whatever on the front page of Yahoo! If we want to learn more, the search engine is our obedient friend.

What the media have is a brand that, I think, will at some point begin to matter more than it does at this moment in time, especially if there's real news (i.e. a crisis) being made in the world. Most bloggers are just guys with a keyboard and a lot of opinions (some think that to be true of most journalists :0). There is power and value in reading something in the NY Times, Washington Post, and even the Star that carries credibility that Joe's Blog is lacking in spades.

The media's job is to make its machinations more transparent so people can see that there is seldom, if ever, a political agenda at work, and when there is, to do something about it. This is a time for outlets to focus on credibility issues, if they are to survive. Unfortunately, as Bruce points out, economic realities will force many outlets to continue to scale back, eroding what little remains of true investigative and local reporting and exacerbating the move toward the lightweight and easy to cover.

Bruce is correct -- we can all learn more about things which we deem important faster and more comprehensively than ever before. I do worry that we are becoming a nation of people who consume only that information which we already have an interest in or which grabs us with a "gotcha" headline. We need venues to provide us with a window to the world that forces us to consider things that are not front-and-center, like Scott Pelley's excellent piece on Darfur in last week's "60 Minutes."

Traditional media must maintain its important seat as a chief disseminator of information, but it can only do so if it makes itself relevant in ways that seem old fashioned: by truly providing local service and serving as a venue where we can examine and be exposed to issues in a way that is above the fray of opinion and superfluousness.

Now I'm off to check out the Hetrick blogs! :)

[Cathy Day]

Very well said, Ken. Kudos.

[Douglas Karr]

I believe traditional media can remain at the center by going back to the basics of journalism. Sensationalism and opinion have replaced great writing, investigation and analysis in traditional media throughout the world.

Case in point - the cover of the BBC today is a story about a man shooting his lawnmower. That's quality news? I believe it's the BBC merely competing with other sensationalistic web sites. Shooting your lawnmower does have a place on the net - but putting it on BBC's site drops their credibility significantly, in my opinion.

Regionally, our journalists have the resources and the access to dig up the best, the most complex, the deepest, and the darkest stories. They are the watchdogs of our democracy. Or they should be, anyways.

Having more than a decade in newspapers, I know that traditional media got fat and lazy. Now they're paying for it. I honestly do look forward to media 'taking back the web' and showing what quality writing, tenacious investigation and balanced analysis really is. I'm just not holding my breath for it to happen any time soon.

Bruce, it's great to see Smaller Indiana make the spotlight with the IBJ. It's also great to see a local media professional here in SI. In my opinion, though, I think your article falls short and fails to dig into the culture and change that's occurring here. Had you dug a little deeper, I think you'd find amazing stories of art, humanity, entrepreneurship, economics and technology.

Change is afoot in Indiana and the creative leaders are organizing here in SI. Traditional media and government are scratching their heads and watching us explode, changing the socio-economic landscape of the state. They don't know whether to join, compete, advertise, or ignore us. They write articles with shallow observations of 'another social network'.

The great thing is that Smoosiers aren't really worried about it. We're busy changing our world. Keep watching and please participate in the conversation. I look forward to your next article - after you've been here for a while and see what's happening with your own eyes. It's big.

With much respect!
Doug

[Hazel "The Queen" Walker]

"Can traditional media remain in the center of the conversation?"

Pat, great question, Bruce great article.

I do not read the Star, or the New York Times, I don't watch the news on TV, I am not interested in the sensational sound bite kind of news that is one sided and distorted.

I do read the IBJ and now listen to NPR, I search websites, blogs and discuss world news with my social networks. Recently I was part of a very heated discussion on Ecademy about the freedom of Tibet with people from all over the world. The different views were amazing as we discussed the news being posted about the fighting in Tibet. I become more educated on the Tibet/China history, the culture of Tibet, the views of many around the world. It was not just a one sided story, but a well-rounded, sometimes heated, discussion.

I can get more information on Smaller Indiana about what is going on in Indiana than I can anywhere else, next to that I read the IBJ, it is local and it is relevant to me and relevant to my business. If I want National or International News, I turn to NPR or other Sources.

So, to answer the question, I think that Main Stream Media can stay in the conversation, but I am not sure it is in the center of the conversation.

[Lorraine Ball]

Robert Scobel's blog post today provides interesting perspective on this conversation.

I particularly like his closing comment: This is a participatory media, not a one-way one, and, while it has a different editing system (the editing is done post publishing, not pre-publishing) it’s pretty clear to me that this system arrives at the truth a lot faster than anything on paper does.

[Elizabeth Stahl]

As a novice in the world of social media - I can't claim great knowledge. What I do see is an opportunity for many people to be heard on issues that are important to them, issues that the main stream media has either abandoned or reports with unacknowledged bias.
It will be interesting to watch the quickly growing ground swell of social networks.

[Pat Coyle]

I just checked...Bruce's article on ibj.com has received 0 comments.

[Lorraine Ball]

Not surprised, the vocal community is here.

[Matt Theobald]

Does "traditional" media mean anything anymore?
Meaning, has anything ever really changed with media, except maybe the medium?
The writing is on the wall with this one, I think.

Speaking of specialized social networks, there's a pretty good take on media at
shadowspear.com.

Don't have to be a member to join.