Log In
E-mail or User ID
  Keep me signed in
Recover Password
Create an Account

Social Media VS Traditional Media

Today I read a really intriguing post by Valeria Maltoni entitled Newspapers and Social Power.  I'm not a newspaper person.  Not at all.  I don't even read the newspaper in Hotels when they put one outside my door.  But this notion of how newspapers are faring in the internet age is of interest to me.  I see it as a big sign of the times as to how the world is changing around us.   As Valeria's post looked into this dimension, I found it interesting.

It made me think. 

I started thinking about the channels of traditional media that I do consume, and why I do/don't like it.  This led to a couple bigger thoughts that seemed to look more into the role of technology and some similarities and differences between the traditional media outlets and social media.  I think it is important to develop models and understanding for these kinds of changes, so my mind went a good bit down this path.  I'm happy with what came up, and will share it with you.


I've already said that I'm not a newspaper guy.  I think its a medium issue.  Print newspapers are so bulky and "difficult" to move around.  It's just never there when I want to look at the news.  So I don't subscribe to a newspaper - either local or national.  Every time I try, it just seems to go to the recycle can with the rubber band still on.  Interestingly enough, there is a hyper-local newspaper that comes out once every couple weeks.  I do often thumb through it (much smaller and easier to peruse) about half the time when it comes.  I do like to know what is going on immediately around me and in my city (as opposed to the Phoenix Metro area).

I also watch the news on TV.  Most often I watch the local news in the evening, although sometimes I do catch the national broadcast as well.  I'll be honest, I don't go out of my way to do this.  If it's on the channel and I'm feeling lazy and don't want to change, I'll watch.  But most often it doesn't hold my interest.  In part because I don't trust it.  I don't relate to it.  It doesn't have a focus I find interesting or compelling.

I have about 85 feeds currently coming into my RSS Reader.  Some of them are news outlets.  Some are blogs.  Others are twitter streams.  And some are RSS aggregators.  Google Reader is almost always one of the tabs I have open if my computer is on.  I flow through and consume what I want there and move on.  This is my preferred method of finding out about stuff.  Given that I don't have enough attention to go around, I read the feeds where I am interested.  Or I directly look up information on the internet (like whether or not Tiger Woods won the golf tournament this last weekend).


One of the things I don't like about the TV news as a traditional media source is that it bundles a lot of different topics and styles into a given broadcast.  As a format rule, I know a given 30 minute segment will cover National News, State News, Metro News, Sports, Weather, Human Interest.  At a minimum.  This is the bundling that they seem to follow (although sequence varies).  If I am not in the mood for human interest, there is no option for omitting that part of the broadcast and replacing it with something I do want to know about.  I don't like this at all.  I think the broadcast news follows a formula for "maximum broad appeal" or something like that.  I don't happen to fit that profile, so I am mostly non-plussed by it all.

Newspapers often have more articles than what a TV broadcast does.  This is nice- but I tend to gravitate to the hyper-local option.  I like it because I am interested in the things happening in my neighborhood and part of town.  There really isn't an alternative source for a lot of this that I know about.  So that is a good option.  This is a targeted bundle that does appeal to my interests by focusing on a small area of impact.

The internet is the ultimate for self-bundling.  I pick and choose what feeds and authors come into my reader.  If I decide I don't like something any more, I take it out.  At the same time, via Google and other experience, I know how to get targeted information that answers my immediate questions.    The internet offers the maximum flexibility and control to get what I want to know.


TV tries to make a big deal out of voice.  There is no mistake that they use real people "live" to increase the impact of the voice with which they report.  I suppose their goal is for me to develop some sort of a felt-relationship with these people and develop a sense of trust.  Unfortunately, while the voice attempts to be rich, it is also very limited.  I get on voice per story, and I have to accept it as my one option.  There is very limited opportunity to go elsewhere if I don't like the voice of that reporter or that broadcast. 

On the internet there are many voices.  Once of the things that is a bit tough to do is to sample through them and pick the ones that work for me.  The ones I trust to give me the straight scoop.  Interestingly, I find that when a person writes a bit on a given topic, and I can begin to associate them with that topic, it helps me appreciate the voice they use.

The reporters on TV by contrast are generalists, and often only have time to report the most surface details - and have to bounce around many topics.  So they seldom (except for weather or sports) get to develop a real voice I can appreciate.

I don't know how to assess newspapers on this topic.

Making Meaning

Recently, I've been noticing that the TV news seems to want to help me make meaning of "big complicated national issues."  They try to bring on experts who can tell me what was important in the news, and what I should think about it.  I find this entirely unwelcome.  I consider it just short of a hack job.  Most often, I want to gather data and make up my own mind.  I definitely don't want a TV news anchor reading it off a  TelePrompTer.   I don't see where the depth of experience comes from in that setting.

This is a big deal for me.  These meaning making news broadcasts seem to be forced on me, without any accountability for how I want to make meaning of the data.  I see the news as trying to be "helpful" by offering explanations for very complex items.  Yes, it's probably needed, but I don't think that talking heads on the news channel are the ones I want to hear talking about it.  This is a big stumbling block for me.  I like to  it if the broadcast media would choose my own way and timing fro making meaning.  I'd appreciate stay out of this space and let me work it out myself.

On the internet, I can find people I trust (and choose from a broad range of them, depending on the topic).  I can vet them and test what they have to say to see if they meet my criteria for meaning.  Frankly this is  a nice feature of the internet.  It's really about me being able to exercise control, and everything needing to align to how and what I want to consume.

I think it's interesting to see how internet media is taking off.  You are reading this blog, which surely means something.  I hope my voice and meaning making are what you are looking for and that you come back for many happy returns.

Dennis Stevenson

Dennis Stevenson


View Dennis Stevenson's profile on LinkedIn /></a>

<a href= Stumble It!

Original Thinking

â†‘ Grab this Headline Animator

Read 2 comments


Pardon me for pointing this out, Dennis, but you were sounding a bit 'Andy Rooney' on this score. "One of the things I don't like about the TV news as a traditional media source is..." and again, "I don't like this at all. I think the broadcast news follows a formula for "maximum broad appeal" or something like that," and again, and again, "Recently, I've been noticing that the TV news seems to want to help me make meaning of "big complicated national issues."

There nothing wrong with that tactic, per se, but it points up a potential hazard in the age of 'the digital me.' The general appetite for hyper-local was, in the heyday of print journalism, was significantly met by local newspapers -even in small towns. It's what people talked about, face-to-face, between editions, whenever they got together. (As a small town guy, myself, I'm aware of the downside.)

Among print journalism's social roles(as disntict from the roles of the publishishg business that embodied it) was its contribution to "the social imaginary," (Charles Taylor's coinage that describes the common social context through which people came to understand 'norms.') Taylor makes his best case for it by contrasting the American and French experiences in that last quarter of the 18th century as we obtained a capitalist, representative democracy and the French suffered through more than a generation of revolution and reversion before finding the capacity to imagine an effective form of governance that derived its authority from the consent of the governed.

The entire globe is in a similar situation today, suffering through a cascadeing failure of institutions. Unfortunately,we haven't found the right components for the new "social imaginary." It certainly is not going to arise from a set of atomized nodes in random social network that shares little more than a digital infrastructure. Granted, the infrastructe has the capacity to organize some common actions (elections, political and social movements, and so on) but it has yet to reveal a vision shared vision, legitimate authority, or common respect for liberty. It has, however, managed to confuse liberty with 'freedom' which it vivifies through a celebrating disconnectedness.

We are all about to find out, if we are, indeed, in the same boat. I don't lament, the passing of the newspaper business. I lament the diminished role that journalism plays in shaping the social imaginary (i.e, journalism as it should be practices, not as it is).

Search engines, blogs, twitter, YouTube, and the rest of it, has yet to reveal its vision of a new social imaginary beyond some kind of digital shopping and entertainment fun-park driven by ticket sales. Your quite right about the difficulty of budgeting our attention. Still, we have to find someway budget for a shared attention. We didn't go through all of this to build a walled garden around our soical consciousness. -dlh
In my own defense, I'll say this is mostly about my thoughts and opinions. Having said that I'll also admit this wasn't my most fluent post. Looking back, I'd write it differently if I could do it again (and might some day).

But to your point... back in the heyday of Print media (especially), there was a modern notion of "truth" and the true perspective. Media had a place to stand in order to present to their readers what was going on.

Today in our post modern world, that common stance is largely gone. Pick a topic, and there are a multitude of different perspectives on it. Each one presenting itself as true and having a band of adherents that deeply and passionately advocate for it. "Illegal Aliens" or "undocumented workers" That's a hot debate here in AZ where I live. In the middle of this tension and conflict, what is the stance for the media to take?

I specifically like the digital media, because I can find a perspective that I trust/like, or I can survey a variety of different perspectives and get a feel of the total take on a given topic. But I'm in control of this process. In any given consumption moment, I'm deciding what set of assumptions I want to invoke.


Leave a Comment

Connect to this blog to be notified of new entries.
You are not logged in.
Sign In to post unmoderated comments.
Join the community to create your free profile today.
Archive Category: Social Media
Keyword Tags:  Social   Media   VS   Traditional   Media

Original Thinking
by  Business Operations VP/Director/Manager

Exploring life as a Digital Citizen
Receive the latest blog posts:
Share Your Perspective
Things To Do
Subscribe in a reader
You Might Also Like
Traditional Data Backup VS Business Continuity Solution
Learn the differences between a Business Continuity... read more
IT Management Daily News Digest for July 3, 2014
Facebook Investigated over Emotion Study Officials... read more