A neat quote that encapsulates where the divide between new and social media lies:
Adriana says: "I divide between old and new media on the one hand and social media on the other hand. New media is just digitalised old media. Social media are tools like blogs, tagging, podcasts, wikis etc that facilitate communication. It is by its nature interactive and I especially like the social aspect of it."
Kristine Lowe, quoting Adriana Lukas.
Like so many things in life, I think the distinctions aren't quite as clear-cut.
"Social media" stories only become stories when the old media pick up on them. To a huge degree, social media are just people talking among themselves: the converted preaching to the converted if you will, until the old media pick up on the story. Take the example of the Cat-in-a-bin woman this week - it became a story because a Coventry newspaper picked up on it, then it hit the BBC, and then it became A Story. Until then, it'd been geeks like me amusing themselves sniggering about the video.
There are interconnections betwene the old, new and social media which feed on each other and need each other.
24 Hour News really took off when the editors discovered that they don't need to chase stories: the internet is full of stories they can make into Stories. The fact that most of these stories are little more than local gossip is of no relevance, it fills the airwaves. And they are tied in to their own websties and social media sites, running their own material and taking on other people's material, and interacting with their audience. And of course their audience taking on those stories and talking about them on facebook, twitter, et al. The vast majority of links I get in my twitter feeed are to "old-new media" sources so what am I engageing in? Old media, new media, or social media?
I think it's good to remember that before it became a job description, the term "media" meant "communication media" - ultimately that's what it's all about and all the differnet ways, print, radio and TV broadcast, electronic text and electronic video, all feed into one huge maelstrom of "noise" assailing us all from all directions which it is becoming increasingly difficult to make any sense of, and talking about it onyl makes things worse!
The emergence of talent online in the form of younger people getting a camera, backpack and notepad and doing journalism better than you see in the national papers is excellent. There wasn't this platform 20 years ago, yet the rule that so characterizes journalism - talent gaining the rewards - is still present though exceptions abound. Note that the 'new' kids on the block are, to an extent, doing it the 'old' way.
A week or so after I started Dirty Garnet I e-mailed Guardian journo Nick Davies, mainly to convey praise and an optimistic suggestion for any updated edition of his book Flat Earth News ever be published. In his reply an interesting point was raised - how does all this talent online get paid for the fine work they do?
This is important since anyone can do journalism as a 'hobby' to a point, investing only modestly. However if you wish to pursue as it a job, travel further afield, or conduct investigations that require time - that's screened off from you as you economically can't meet the cost.
As 'old media' regresses in forthcoming years it's a mystery how we're going to get this enthused quality the funds needed to bring consistant health back to the trade. I've encountered bloggers who do better work than most salaried, officebound journos simply as they do it the old school way by going outside to extract news both they and hopefully an audience find interesting. That many of these people do this out of passion alone is all the more amazing.
Richard: There was more reportage done over the death of one individual - Jade Goody - than there were over the Haitian earthquake which saw about 250,000 perish. I'm certain more net column inches were dedicated to Jade than the 1994 Rwandan genocide that left close to a million dead and many more in suffering and strife.
The press largely left and moved on from these events within a month. The grotesque slideshow of Jade's final few months were a cheap, easy, sustainable feature to cover for every newspaper including the 'quality' dailys. That old media largely elevated the subject to fame in the first place is a sign of how spurious the entire affair was insofar as it being national 'news' was concerned.
But it was cheap and for the corporate owners 'better' than all the time/money needed to extract news from abroad.
Something's going wrong you think?
Pete, editor at Dirty Garnet.