Mar 21 2010

Why Criticize Social Media for Being What It Is?

Published by at 7:56 am under social media,Vancouver

Social media is not and cannot be a sort of backup system for when “traditional” (and paid) journalists seem to fall down on the job. With few exceptions, bloggers tend to be gatekeepers, promoters and pundits — not writers of the first draft of history. Besides, the symbiotic relationship between newsmakers and social media practitioners benefits both sides.

My look back at the “Lessons from the Olympics” Social Media Club panel where I spoke earlier this week:

Social Media Is Not Supposed To Pick Up The Slack of Traditional Media

Sure, we create all kinds of original content, from photos and videos to really thought-provoking essay-type blog posts. But as a rule, we don’t pick our themes from whatever the newsmakers have deemed unworthy of their attention — at least, not if we want people to actually see what we’re creating.

[Slashdot] [Digg] [Reddit] [del.icio.us] [Facebook] [Technorati] [Google] [StumbleUpon]

One response so far

One Response to “Why Criticize Social Media for Being What It Is?”

  1. real conservativeon 21 Mar 2010 at 5:00 pm

    Social media in fact can not only be a backup to traditional media but even beat it to the punch. How you ask? Simple, it needs to organize more and starting working together more. The problem with blogging is that it is a bunch of disconnected people out tooting their own bullhorns or shilling some familiar song instead of digging to find the real truth.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply