In many ways, the conflict between Old Media and the blogosphere might be best summed up as a conflict between Old Media insiders who thrive by using the contacts they've accumulated through years of covering a beat and schmoozing with insiders - their "un-named sources" who so often speak ONLY off the record, and WITH an agenda - (what I call their SPHINX-like sources), and the bloggers who must LINK to sources which can be (and should be) readily tested by anyone and everyone.
Hence the "clever" phrase: "SPHINX vs LINKS."
In this contest - as in most others like it (in science or in law) - arguments based on testable hypotheses, which pan out, win.
Given the choice between (a) open-sourced independent bloggers - (often reporting in the area of their professional expertise, OR IN THEIR NECK OF THE WOODS), who analyze the public record and write up foot-noted essays, and (b) reporters working for editors with hidden agendas (and using unnamed sources with THEIR OWN hidden agendas), who do you think MOST people with a more than cursory interest in news will almost always prefer?
The blogosphere EVERYTIME. And the Old Media better get into it or they're goners.
No comments:
Post a Comment