Tim Berry wrote a post that took up the subject of my post yesterday: Netflix and “cannibalistic” innovation. The following is a comment that I added to Tim’s post:
Tim, I’m a bit in awe here. You took a partially-thought-through idea, probed it, refined it and added to it.
The result is kind of a diptych–two linked posts that form the basis of a dialog on an important subject (important to me, anyway).
This kind of collaboration is unique to social media. And that’s one of the things that really annoys me when the mainstream media (MSM) denigrates blogs as useful info sources.
Peer-to-peer, emerging dialog just doesn’t happen in the MSM. It’s one voice (with an editor in the background, perhaps). It’s static.
Even when MSM outlets use blogs and other online capabilities, they enfeeble them. Newspapers put older articles (some as recent as 2 weeks old!) behind pay firewalls.
The New Yorker blogs (examples here), which are superbly written and insightful, as you’d expect, don’t allow comments (!?!).
This to me is like purchasing a new car and refusing to use reverse gear. It’s just crazy. (Perhaps fueled by fear of eating one’s own tail, to bring it back to the subject of the dialog.)
Sorry to drag on, but I think your post highlighted one of the distinctive values of blogging & social media. It’s one of the reasons fewer people buy newspapers, & more people are participating & creating their own information sources.
Tags: blogging, dialogue, media, msm, social media
