Will the New Media become just like the old media?

I've been writing for some time that blogs are just tools. Their value is in allowing conversations to scale, allowing people to have the kind of conversations they might have over a backyard fence with people all over the world who.

I've also written about how different the new social media dialog is from the monologues of big media and marketing programs, how much healthier, more productive and more effective having conversations with customers and peers is to delivering messages contrived in marketing departments. I've argues that social media empowers friends and passionate customers to influence what we buy, watch, listen to and even how we vote, more than the celebrities, sports heroes, billboards and slogans of yore.

I still believe that this is true.

But there is a gathering trend that has been disturbing me for quite some time and that is the blogosphere is moving from the flat, equanimous peer-to-peer network shapelessness into more of an hierarchy. There is a top-down structure in which some bloggers have become more influential than others. This is obvious to some degree. Some bloggers, like Arrington, Scoble and Om Malik have earned the right to be popular. They have written more, given more, observed more, helped millions of people find valuable or interesting information.

What concerns me is that as they grow in size, the old media model may be starting to be the new media model. Companies and publicists now queue up pitch their wares to this new super tier. In certain circles, coverage in these few blogs is perceived in the same way as coverage in the NYTimes, Washington Post or Time magazine of 20 years ago was perceived. What is written on those blogs is a "media hit." Where comments and links and tweets are supposed to create a conversation, they may be stating to be little more in potency than yesterday's Letter to the Editor.

Media hits may not be so bad. But they are not a conversation.

If the influence of a few simply dwarfs the voices of the many, social media a few years from today may not look that different from the old media.  There was a time when the new media was broadcast television and the great promise for education an understanding was eschewed in a great many places. One of it's early champions, Newton Minnow would end up after years in championing it, concluding  that it had become a "vast wasteland."

Is that what will happen to social media? Is the incredible promise of this new conversational revolution destined to become tomorrow's vast wasteland?

I certainly hope not. But as the ponderous New York Times editorial writer would conclude: "It remains to be seen."

Comments

[hksully]

Very interesting post. So, I suppose the question is - how can this be prevented? Is it the responsibility of companies and publicists to learn more about engaging in a discussion instead of pitching a story? Will that make the difference? Or will a "super tier" continue to emerge organically?

[Rex Pechler]

I have seen the future... the future which you ponder in this article. I write to quell your fears.

Digg-like popularity system, but with good original content. Location-relevance, so your recommendations are based on a weighted average of physical proximity, similarity to your previous preferences, and overall popularity. I'm talking about a community-sourced newswire... Instead of media outlets drinking only from the AP fountain, we the people will provide a seriously attractive alternative. Oh, and it will all work because neighborhoods really need a better way to communicate. And because we'll have really high participation rates. Imagine a platform for writing that if you write something good enough, your local paper will publish it, and you get compensated for it if you do...

twitter.com/rex

[Colin Carmichael]

I'm not sure that new media will become 'just like' old media. I AM sure, though, that new media will become old media. What we now call 'social media' will inevitably become the old standard to be ridiculed by my children and grand-children as they gush about their new shiny communication medium.

[Jim Dittmer]

First, let me concur with Colin except, in my case, it's more likely to be my grand and great grand children! It is likely there will be yet another communication upheaval as the young, restless, and idealistic folks of the 2020's and 30's reject the old school "Social Media" model.

As for today, the blogosphere is changing because it has to to. Trusted sources of information rise to the top because we need them to. There is simply too much misinformation available to have everyone exist on an even plain.

[Michael]

Shel, please get a spell checker and read some Strunk and White. Every one of your posts and most of your tweets are filled with spelling and grammar errors. I am shocked that you are a published author.

[Seth Finkelstein]

Umm, what were Z-listers SAYING FOR YEARS???

NOBODY HEARD!!!

[Jon Garfunkel]

re: "But there is a gathering trend that has been disturbing me for quite some time and that is the blogosphere is moving from the flat, equanimous peer-to-peer network shapelessness into more of an hierarchy."

The trend was obvious three years ago, and five years ago as well. Some social media expert you are.