Oops I accidentally the whole civil society...

44leto wrote: »

I notice a lot of topics are usually started by quotations or a link to a press article from the old media. If you want to give a post or a point some credence you will link it to an old media source and not a blog.

Aye and that's the problem with "new media". It seems to overwhelmingly break down into lots of raw data and lots of opinion pieces springing from that. There can be a serious vacuum, or lack of cogent filter in the middle. A new new media may be required. I'm not so sure it'll come from the ranks of the current new media. Just because everyone has a say, or gets enough likes on a blog, it doesn't mean they're worth listening to. There are millions of video cameras in cupboards around the world, but precious few [___________] insert your fave director here. Plus the new media can often exaggerate the numbers and effect it appears to have.

I read the Sunday Times each week, I cannot link to their articles, on the internet it is subscription only, the way the other quality ones will have to go eventually. They deserve payment for the service they provide, we can't always expect it for free.

True but as Dev said, they do enough data mining and cool hunting for free themselves.

I have a few links to blogs by real experts myself Bambi and that aspect is bloody brilliant. Yes the info is out there, if you have the faculties, hell the interest to discern the guff from the smooth(c). Even judging by your join date here, you're likely well festooned with quality filters based on experience. A remarkable amount of people, even some interweb savvy people are not, particularly those for whom the web has always been there, or those who rarely enough use it.

As LL put so well in his response to DV;

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

someone like yourself, a self confessed lover of journalism who was in on the ground floor of an ever growing new media platform is going to be far better placed to sift through the wealth of information and disseminate the good from the bad from the downright ugly. You are well placed to become your own journalist. In my view, it is dangerous to assume that everyone has such ability.

Plus it's dangerous or maybe naive is a better word(?)to assume how much of the majority of people in the world with access to the web bother digging beyond the very surface. If you're coming from a deep involvement with a form of media the danger is you'll over estimate it's effect on others who do not. After all most journos will likely consider their particular vector, print/TV/radio the "best".