The old means of control don't work. The old categories don't work. The old ways of thinking won't work. We all need to come to terms with that. Fundamentally, the old media won't control news dissemination in the future. And organisations can't control access using old forms of accreditation any more. Those statements mean what they say and not necessarily more. I am not arguing that newspapers and magazines and news services will die. No, just that they must change.
He goes on to talk about how silly it is to think of "accreditation" and defining who is and who is not a journalist by pointing out that everyone is a journalist in some way.
This isn't necessarily the "citizen journalism" trumpeted by some pundits, but a recognition that social networks make everyone the journalist of their own lives: To say they can blog as long as it isn't journalistic, misses the point. To a 23 year-old athlete, used to putting out a "news feed" of every detail of her personal life and training on various social media platforms, there simply isn't a distinction. Her life IS a news feed. Her blog IS a publishing platform. Her Facebook page IS the daily newspaper of her life. And none of these things is really private. They can get indexed by Google; they get searched; they can be public to the world with a potential circulation of every single user of the internet. Take this scenario: I will easily aggregate my imaginary athlete's comments and thoughts on winning or losing or on the standard of judging with tweets giving the audience perspective from various parts of the stadium. I'll then add that in with mobile phone camera pictures and video posted on Flickr and youtube. Well, my friends, who really needs the rightsholders, AP or Reuters if you can do that?
link: Techdirt
0 comments:
Post a Comment