A series of our Tweets on the new nature of media, followed by some interesting @replies.
“We are the media” is one of those phrases that is perfectly sensible while slightly confusing.
One way to look at it is that everyone is (or can become, cheaply) a publisher. Your blog’s features are the same as @nytimes
Now, if everyone publishes, we need filters. That’s the 2nd part of “we are the media.” Some of us are publishers & some of us are filters. (Some are both.)
Filters used to be editors, people who were paid to be at the front-end of the publishing process and decide what’s in or out.
Deciding what was in or out was a necessity based on fixed size: a magazine or paper is only so big. Some things must go.
But now that anyone can publish we need those editors at the back-end of the process: to filter. People who filter are curators.
We ARE the media. But like the staff at yesterday’s publishers, we have different roles, skills, and contributions.
@troygilbert: @Storybird: Evolution of communication: 1-to-1 (talk), 1-to-few (groups), 1-to-many (oration), few-to-many (broadcast), many-to-many (web).
queenjustine @Storybird I’ve been wondering if we’re moving toward true meritocracy – whereas “media” sometimes (often) fan flames and create illusions?
@queenjustine: media is a loaded term. But in this context, appropriate since individuals now have power to fan flames/create illusions too.
queenjustine @Storybird Isn’t that a form of corruption? Happens with group-think and bureaucracy, but not millions of individuals acting alone.
@queenjustine: poss talking about 2 dif things. But, u r right that “we are the media”=meritocracy. How/if/when it’s corrupted is separate.
queenjustine @Storybird so interesting! Thank you for the thoughts. Adds another dimension to my mental model of media utopia…
@molly_oneill: in the context you’re talking about—absolutely. In the context of “organizing” the sea of media, less so.