The Vanishing Power of Mainstream Media

PowerOver the weekend I had discussions on Twitter with someone who is against the democratizing of the web. This person believes it brings the overall quality down and the media should be left to “professionals” (although this was never defined).

This discussion, combined with last weeks Cluetrain thinking, brought about a thought that I tested on my fellow Twitternauts. I didn’t want to ask directly and tip people off on what I was thinking, so slyly I asked the following question:

If you could only follow one Twitter user, who would it be and why?

My ulterior motive was to see how readily people could come up with a single Twitterer. I was also expecting those who could select a single Twitter user to follow would choose the person with the most variety of Tweets, but I was also hoping for people to choose “connectors” who re-tweet.

Why? I had a theory that, like blogs and society in general, the Twitter community is more than the sum of its parts.

I wasn’t disappointed. Only a few people could name a single Twitter user that they could be happy to follow. Other than family members and close friends it was Problogger followed by DoshDosh who came out tops.

OK, unscientific, and I was aiming to find support for my argument rather than truly test it, but here are my conclusions:

  • The more the merrier – it’s the crowd that makes it what it is, the more people who take part the richer the experience. While you might not want to follow hundreds of people, you still want a large pool to select from. If you follow well-connected Twitterers you benefit from their re-tweets also.
  • It’s not the MSM – some people are craving the old “command and control” structures where we are told what is news, what we should believe, and who we should listen to. I think we are seeing even the best single source can’t possibly serve all your needs and there is room for more than just the select few.
  • Fear of freedom – central news control is doomed, and that is spooking the old guard who crave this power and control. What good are these credentials and the blessing of officialdom when nobody listens? More and more you get the audience you deserve, not the audience you demand or feel entitled to.
  • Goodbye Broadcast - you have to listen not just broadcast. We want two-way conversation and to have a voice. The most popular Twitterers, of course, interact, but increasingly the more mainstream media that embrace two-way conversation will be those who survive. Some people believe this is bringing everything down to a base level mediocrity, but I actually see it as moving control from the gatekeepers to the people who the media is created for.
  • The editor role – Rather than doing away with editors, I see them being even more important but in a fresh way. Rather than being gatekeepers and controllers, they become filters and connectors. I am looking to the Chris Brogans, Scobles, Probloggers. Instead of being the official line, you follow who provides the mix that suits you, and rather than being told what to believe, they offer you the blend that allows you to work out your opinion for yourself.

Now, obviously, Twitter is all about peer-to-peer communication BUT we could, if we wanted to, purely follow the mainstream media sources. There are feeds for all the popular news channels like BBC, and such. Or we could only follow people with “credentials”. But we don’t. We like a mix. The same with the web, I view BBC news then surf right over to Digg, BoingBoing, and so on. The days of us uncritically and passively soaking up, say, Fox News are long gone, or at least going.

What do you think? Am I off-base? Does this work? Or am I wrong and this road really does lead to anarchy and lowest common denominator? Please share your thoughts in the comments (or mainstream media channel of your choice, heh) :)

Category: Blogging | Comments: 16 Comments - Leave a comment!
  • I think that your idea is definitely NOT off-base. Your post focuses on the macro view of the way that this change in media effects society's consumption of information and "news" at large.

    On a more micro level, these ideas translate extremely well to specific fields like internet marketing. This field used to be about hording and enforcing one guru as the supreme source of information.

    But this field is also experiencing changes along the lines you mentioned.
  • People trust their friends and listen to them first. This is both good and bad. We can interact with our friends and can rely (knowing them as we do we also know where not to rely on them) on their opinions and experience. The problem is that this can get very insular and self-serving. Try challenging an internet marketing guru and see the reaction you get (in my experience they don't listen, just reiterate their mantra and/or are hostile).

    Conversation among friends is good. A broader conversation is desirable too. We need to negotiate a way to live with those who are different to us - and we some who we detest and find contemptible.

    Blogs and such are very focused. People pay attention to what they want to pay attention to. This has weaknesses as well as strengths.

    As to editors. There's not much difference between filtering and controlling and being a gatekeeper and controller.

    There need to be places for respectful dialogue among those who disagree. I don't see blogs providing this - but neither does the mainstream media. I do think this is the core issue though. What can I do? Treat even the most hostile comments to my blog with respect (as long as they have content and aren't just using me to dump on).
  • Ned
    The problem I see with the 'democratization of media' is that the majority is not always accurate, factual, or something like objective. Not that our previous form of media was better, but I think our current era is a transition phase.

    I would like to see a social media site that is not based on voting or favorites or how many people are listening. How about quality of content?
  • Alain Campbell
    I see a tripartite media demographic:

    People who want to be comforted, entertained and kept placid are consumers of mainstream media.

    People who only want reinforcement of their lunacy will gravitate to communities of interest.

    People who want to live in reality will engage in collaborative filtering for content quality, and diversity of opinion for content balance.
  • Excellent Points!

    I like this particular point because I'm an American and think our news sources are extremely biased: "central news control is doomed, and that is spooking the old guard who crave this power and control. What good are these credentials and the blessing of officialdom when nobody listens? More and more you get the audience you deserve, not the audience you demand or feel entitled to."

    I do think it is important to share these good ideas, like what you have here Chris. I am finding myself looking for posts that are about something intriguing, something we can think about besides who is eating what for lunch, or whether so-and-so is scratching their butt. It's a waste of my time.

    But how else can we change society, unless we participate?

    The old "bringing everyone down to a base level" is something that is familiar in educational circles. Generally, teachers teach to the middle, because then you supposedly hit everybody. I never thought that was a good way to do things, and was one of the reasons I was extremely bored with school. You must stretch peoples' ideas and minds. Then they either decide to follow the herd, or break away from their chains. But you must contantly push the limits of what you think society is capable of assimilating.
  • I have not paid attention to any of the lamestream media for some time. Mostly because it is prepared and canned into 30 second bites with little to no depth. I like the social medias because we can get discussion and indepth information on our particular subjects of interest.

    I do believe the big media is terrified of the growing social media and it's ability to reach people. Just the fact that we are here talking about it attests to the growing strength of this media and the continued weakening of "mainstream" media.
  • Nice piece, do you see the day when their is a commentator on one of the social media sites who you have been following for some time and they become your go-to persont to diseminate the news?
  • lawrence berezin
    I suggest that in order to sustain its power, mainstream media will shift its format of message delivery to align itself more closely with the internet style of marketing. "Knowledge at Wharton", a resource of the Wharton Business School recently presented an interview with Mr. Kevin Roberts, CEO Worldwide of Saatchi & Saatchi since 1997. Saatchi & Saatchi is an advertising agency, whose clients include Proctor and Gamble, General Mills, Toyota, Novartis and J.C. Penny.

    A video of the interview can be found on the Wharton Business School Web site. Click on Podcast. Then, Click on the Roberts interview. It can also be found on YouTube.

    The following is a copy of my post on the Wharton BS Website.

    What a wonderful interview. Great questions, rich content.

    I was fascinated by Mr. Roberts suggestion that the most important medium for the next 20 years will be the T.V. His citation of the enormity of global T.V. usage supported his opinion.

    I have noticed a convergence of traditional T.V. marketing with internet idea communication in some recent T.V. advertisements. For example, I was watching a commercial for the "new" sporty Pontiac with my 22 year old son.

    One commercial took the format of a power point presentation ( a great, Garr Reynolds type presentation) demonstrating why the "new" sporty Pontiac was a better car than the BMW. My son agreed.

    In another spot for Pontiac, the T.V. ad displays a video game type racing scene with Pontiac competing against other, more expensive cars, and winning! My 22 year old son was very impressed. I loved both commercials.

    Why not use the big screen to invite viewers to visit the small screen , a company's web site? Instead of interruption marketing, and trying to hammer home a message to viewers on the way to the kitchen, why not use the spot to say something like the following:

    "Pardon the interruption. ABC Company understands how important your leisure time is to you. We respect your right to choose what your watch, so I will be brief. We have some very important information about a new product that we would like to share with you. We think it's a great product and would appreciate your feedback. At your leisure, please visit our web site. Let us know what you think".

    On the web site, have a place for visiters to answer a 3-4 question survey, without any contact information. Any significant increase in traffic can be measured. I would put a face to the company and have the CEO, dressed casually, deliver the message.

    Just a thought. Anyway, I'm on my way to shoot a can of Coke.
  • Remember way back when you could turn on your TV and only get like five channels? That wasn't that long ago.

    I agree with what's been said here. Mainstream media are losing power in many people's lives. I personally don't consume much MSM anymore. Don't need to.
  • The question you pose at the beginning is, I believe, the crucial one: Who are the professionals; what constitutes mainstream media?

    BBC is surely mainstream media, but can we say that DoshDosh is a professional journalist?

    I think that's where democratization of the web is mostly visible. We consider successful bloggers as professionals, as authoritative figures - maybe as mainstream too.
    Maybe not to the extent of mainstream -mass- media, but certainly to a high degree
  • Great question! I'm glad you found most people couldnt pick just one person to follow. Surely that takes us straight back to a broadcast model.

    You're right, what's great about Twitter is watching and being part of conversations, seeing who knows who and what's catching the eye of people enough for them to share. I hadn't thought of them that way, but I guess those people we really enjoy following are acting as editors for us (beyond the filtering we do ourselves) - switching from source, to source as you describe. Interesting :)
  • There's no point lamenting the democratization of the media: it's already happened, and I, for one, cannot see it as a bad thing. I see my daily online interactions as an expression of my individual autonomy. I love that I am the editor of the sources of information I receive. I question everything. I don't take anything for granted. I am a connected and informed participant rather than a passive consumer. It's understandable that this is, quite frankly, terrifying to producers of old-style media, but in order to survive, they must adapt. If this means maintaining a Twitter presence, or indeed a presence on any other social media platform, then that's what they need to do.
    It's Darwinism in action!
  • Hm. Not sure what to think of this post, mostly because I don't fall into any of the groups of people here.

    What I want out of social media is sociable interaction. I don't want someone to filter what's best for me. I don't want someone to tell me what to do. I don't have a fear of freedom - in fact, I embrace that I am intelligent enough not to follow the herds.

    I want to Twitter and use social media to get a break from the barrage of information. I could care less about Fox news or CBC or any of that. I don't want to be barraged by Tweets of people's latest blog posts UNLESS THEY ARE INTERESTING.

    The people I connect with are the ones that share their thoughts, carry conversations, discuss, talk, etc. They are the social of social media. I like knowing who's listening to what music or what everyone is eating for supper or who's having a problem and needs help. To me, social media is about interaction and entertainment.

    If I wanted news, I'd read the news sites.
  • Extremely insightful, Chris.

    I think the "Goodbye Broadcast" is the big thing, for me. Maki and Darren don't respond to comments as much as I'd like (because they have so many dadgum comments). But I've talked with Dosh about the Beatles and ProBlogger about his time as a minister. Where the heck else could I do that?

    Is what I get from them on Twitter, usually, amazingly useful news? Of course not. But the Twitter interaction lends credibility to their work when I feel like I've a personal connection with them. Is that rational? Of course not. But we trust people we know a heck of a lot more than people we don't.

    Oh, and if anyone's looking for me on twitter, I'm WritingJourney ;)
  • This is the crux of the matter for me, absolutely.

    "you follow who provides the mix that suits you, and rather than being told what to believe, they offer you the blend that allows you to work out your opinion for yourself."

    I wonder if you could develop this theme further in relation to authority: there are those we follow (on twitter, through their blogs, through other channels) 'cos of their 'expertise', those we follow because of their credentials, those we follow 'cos of social media popularity (and I think we need to apply a hefty dose of reader scepticism here rather than just following because others do), those we follow because they're good editors, conduits, retweeters, connectors.

    Are all these things elements of authority? Or do we maybe select the kind of authoritative voice that suits our own needs best?

    Joanna
  • I don't use twitter much, just started to get into it. But the people who I follow in any media channel are the people who are the best at filtering all the information out there and giving me the best stuff to pay attention to. That way I don't have to do as much work. I rarely follow any mainstream media anymore since there are people that can filter them out for me online that I can follow.
blog comments powered by Disqus