El mismo perro con diferentes collares! Tautologies!

Nos vamos a matar de la risa! – Amusing ourselves to death! (by self-deception?)

Ok will have to finish it later.

Much respected Martin Weller posted about watching press conference of “Super-Gordon Brown streamed live via Qik by “social media journalist@Documentally and pondered about… “…It occurred to me that I wouldn’t have bothered to watch it live on TV…”

I would add that Martin wouldn’t had watched it either if it wasn’t because of… …tech novelty?

Sorry I can avoid seeing the blatant tautology here exposed i.e. “…this being one of the first times social media type journalists have been in on a big…” [news gig].

Journalism uses mass media – social media is being used here just as another mass media – so what is it so different from traditional journalism?. (Remember the 3 basic functions of J. is to form, inform and entertain -errr… quite similar to education! -…or in the same continuum…: It would depend on the weight put on each vertex of the triangle formed by these basic functions as variables of the mix to have as a result education, journalism or spectacle.) So, OK, the difference is that the social media hype had not yet appear… it was “only” mass media. 

So Martin posted to be “…feeling more connected to the events…” Why was that? Because you know the guy reporting belongs to your institution? Because you can communicate with the representative to pass your questions? Why your questions and not other people questions? – Because of the commentary added?

Martin continues “…we have become rather distant from traditional journalists. Because you engage much more in a dialogue and the everyday aspects of a social media journalist, one can view them as your representative.” [Because was using Twitter as the backchannel to the press conference? Did Documentally asked any question on anyone’s behalf?]

Well, this, “your representative“, used to be the primary function of the ‘journo’ before they became “prima donnas“, and news became spectacle [BTW you need an anchorman overriding the reporter introductory questions 😉 who wouldn’t ask your questions cause his/hers are much more important -John Cleese clip]; i.e. to act as a mere agent on behalf of society, to have the social responsibility of being the representative of society – the 4th power to balance Executive, Administrative and Juridic powers (sorry this is a bit French division no British:). And, I think, this is the risk that we have with so called “social media journalists”, invited by Reuters [surreptitiously absorbing the competition by osmosis… ], and embedded in the mass media circus, to be hyped and fell in same fame-distance trap as their predecessors.

The benefit of Social media is that it makes all of us reporters. Social media re-distributes the power of broadcasting to each one of us as narrowcasting, going out of the trodden path; going away from what the gatekeeper of the main news media groups thinks is worthwhile… Fragmented audiences that mass media can’t cope with. See YouTube: audiences said to be feedup with the same canned stuff repeated in many forms by the mass media recreating it. Mass media reusing the material from YouTube

So, Why not concentrate/centrate on the user, on ourselves, on our world instead of creating idols? (…and here comes the issues of privacy and disclosure) Why repeat what conventional mass media is already doing? Why no chase the long tail? Why not allow student to submit their learning experiences for assessment in a creative – different way? and stop the hype!

Social media has the power to make important what usually has no importance -narrowcast- and probably devolving fact reporting the importance it once has -no the reporter-. Social media can stop making mass-consumers the impassive audience of spectators of irreal pictures of the human comedy-tragedy that appears on the flat screen so farfetched that is unreal, incredible, untruthful. (Does this perception change through embedded social media journalists? (Watch by yourselves the video created)

Social media can devolve that dehumanised espectator the feelling of tangible reality at the other side of the camera / screen.

No need to over-dignify a profession that should be unpretentious and re-distributed to original holders by the power of the technology now available

The inmediacy, i.e. no edit! would it be that what might be attractive […Attractive? – bollocks, you can see the same thing through a BBC camera and you won’t ‘swallow that pill’ for more than just few minutes – depending on your personal interest – as usual) –

So, has it been the curiosity, the novelty, of the embeded entertainer, playing the pranks, acting as self nominated “concience of the audience” but without further consequence for fear to be beheaded?

Leave a Reply