A broader problem is that technology, especially in communications, has advanced faster than our wisdom of how to use it. We have a literacy gap. That was one of the key topics at the recent Inspiring Education conference. Brighter people than me have ideas on how to catch up, but from my narrow perspective I don’t think discarding tools because of human imperfection is a desirable or realistic option. If media, as McLuhan claimed, are “extensions of man,” we are going to see our failures within them: same for print, audio, video and electronic, mainstream and social.

Where I think that there is a real advantage for media organizations is with those who want to do more reflective, in-depth reporting on issues. Yes, anyone with a video camera can go out and shoot video. That’s not going to help people understand what’s really going on.

The tougher investigative work that helps us understand what’s really going on takes time and money. Unfortunately because of the economy, that kind of reporting is being cut back too.

That’s the kind of reporting you’re unlikely to see from citizen journalists in any kind of broad way. They don’t have the time or money to do it.

While journalists may be paid to do their job, you can’t say they’re biased because of it. People who aren’t making money on issues can still have axes to grind and pet projects to nurture. I think that all types of journalists are no less passionate about the issues they report on.

I know the US has had a serious problem with media closing their doors. I wouldn’t attribute it all to social media though. While media audiences are going online more and more, that happened when the economy completely tanked in the US. For most businesses, marketing is the first thing to be cut, which is why the crisis hit media organization so hard.

From what I understand in Edmonton, there hasn’t been the drop in circulation with local papers like there has been in other areas. Why would that be? We’ve got an extremely active social media community (what, maybe 5,000 on Twitter?) yet our media organizations seem to be pretty healthy.

While Canwest is on the verge of collapse, the information I’ve heard is that Canwest’s Alberta properties are the healthiest in the company.

In the end, The MSM has two issues that they must deal with or die.

Speed- While accuracy is an issue, most of the MSM have already gone over to reporting before they know all the facts, its become the norm. See: MJ, Balloon Boy, etc. the MSM was just as accurate as SM.

Cost- Citizens can do the same quality, and do it cheaper, without having to worry about purchasing air time, ad revenue, etc. Arguably, this empowers the SM citizenry to do a better job because they aren’t in it to make money, but because they have a genuine passion, and because they can.

There is a reason newspaper sales went down an average of 10% in the last 6 months (some had an over 25% drop). There is a direct correlation with subsciber drops and SM presence, those that have an online subscription system, did better, or even grew. Those that didn’t, either closed down completely or had massive losses.

Hopefully TV MSM will learn from this trend before the regular population finds out about the alternatives.

I know the media has problems. I absolutely know that. There’s a lot to be desired in the current media landscape, such as concentrated media ownership. A diversity of voices is a good thing. I’ve never said otherwise. Canada’s media landscape does need that diversity of voices and I’m hoping that we’ll see Canwest broken up and sold to smaller media organizations rather than just having it sold to an even bigger media conglomerate.

There are also media organizations out there that have a certain editorial slant, which isn’t good either. I don’t want to read a newspaper with a Liberal or Conservative bias. I would just like stories that are as objective as possible. I like opposing viewpoints. I don’t want to live my life in an echochamber where I only get views that serve reinforce my narrow point of view.

I’m not happy with the current state of the media in many ways, which is why I’ve talked a lot about new forms of media organizations. I do have that blog post about the co-op model I’ve talked about nearly done. Obviously I need to finish it!

When it comes to Twitter, trust is a serious issue and will continue until Twitter can somehow verify accounts. Even then, those accounts can be hacked, so how do you know who is sending out a message on Twitter?

Mack, I know you want to see social media integrated into the media, but it’s really not your decision! Those organizations have to make the decisions for themselves, whether you want to help or not! It’s only a small part of their audience clamouring for them to be on social media and they’re moving into it more and more. Everyone uses social media a little differently and don’t expect the media to use it exactly the way you’d like.

Face it. You will never, ever see everything that happens in a newsroom.

You’re not likely to see what happens in editorial meetings. You’re not likely to see pre-publish versions of stories. Why? Libel is one of the main concerns but also competition. Media organizations still are businesses and they fight for exclusives and “scoops.” No sense giving that information away to your competition or divulging information to those you may be investigating.

While media are paying more attention to social media, and I don’t think it’s a bad thing, do you think that media organizations are completely disconnected from the general public? Nothing could be further from the truth!

In my experience, the public is integral to what happens in a newsroom, particularly as stories are more localized. I have worked on many stories that would have been letters to the editor, but the editor says, “I want you to interview them.” Newsrooms rely on the public calling in with tips about what’s happening. It’s not unlike the police needing the public’s help with investigations.

The perception that the media is detached from the public is just plain wrong. Perhaps in some cases, but that hasn’t been the case in my experience.

Social media is an important investigative tool for the media but they also need to know who they’re talking to. Again, the issue of trust.

There may be some people out there who blindly trust what goes into newspapers, on TV and radio, but there are also many of us who ask questions, but also get their news from multiple sources.

As for what’s in the newspaper, just by being as public as it is and knowing the organizational structure, that’s part of how they generate trust. There is accountability there. If the audience doesn’t trust them, the audience looks elsewhere. As Brad pointed out though, decreasing audience numbers aren’t just about trust, but about new information channels too.

There are two ways to look at your last statement. The first: I disagree that the media will always enjoy an advantage when it comes to audience size and access to information. The second: maybe “media” always will have those advantages, but the definition of “media” is changing, so it’s not what you think of today.

Either way, I disagree with you

And this is the advantage media organizations have over disparate bloggers. Think about it: do you really think that someone’s going to spend a lot of time searching for local stories from bloggers? No, they’re going to go to a media outlet website or pick up their paper, watch or listen to their broadcast, etc. There are some who do, but very few I’m sure. It’s inconvenient and time consuming in a world where people want everything now.

Perhaps there could be local aggregators for blogs, but you run into a trust and bias issue too.

As a reporter I sought to write balanced stories in the beats I covered. I consulted experts in the field or people who were related to the story. The problem with experts writing the stories is if they’re writing from their perspective and aren’t providing balance in the story. I’d rather hear from a few experts and newsmakers in a story rather than a single biased point of view. As a reader, I can make my own decisions on what’s happening in the story. The job of the media is to present a balanced story so one can do that.

What I’m referring to in “keeping on top of issues” is that there are typically dedicated reporters covering areas of public interest, such as politics, crime, health, etc. It doesn’t take long as a reporter to have a good understanding of the issue and to recognize stories that are important to report on.

Did I say bloggers can’t? No. But, let’s be honest. There’s not a whole lot of original reporting going on by bloggers, not compared to the amount of original stories generated by the “mainstream media.” It’s not a slight on bloggers. Like I’ve said before, they usually have other jobs and don’t have the time to sit in hours long committee meetings, etc, to be able to report on what’s happening.

So, a dedicated workforce is a media advantage.

And you’re right, media do enjoy an advantage in terms of audience size and access to information. That will continue.

You make another important distinction – SM is just a channel. I get that, but as the saying goes, the medium is the message. There are lots of people who trust whatever is written in the newspaper solely because it is a newspaper. Doesn’t matter who wrote it. I wonder if SM will ever get to that level of blind trust?

Agreed where SM can feed into MSM. But MSM wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) report on SM until it’s passed their regular fact checking / approval process. SM would be considered a secondary source, to MSM.

re: Trust, we’re back to the time thing — I too don’t believe that SM will *always* play 2nd fiddle to MSM.

But SM is just a media channel, it depends on the trustworthiness of the person or org. using SM, as it does with the org. using MSM.

Unfortunately, most SM users haven’t got the trust level of local newscasters. Yet.

On a similar note, have you heard of Whuffie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whuffie )? I like to think we’re heading in that direction.

I think what’s interesting about the broadcast point isn’t that MSM reaches more people than SM. That, at the moment, is a fact. What’s interesting is that the MSM are tuned into SM, and increasingly it informs their research/reporting. I saw this with #ecca, with the Gariepy Block story, and many other instances. So you might argue that SM does reach a pretty broad audience, through the MSM.

“Trust is the new black.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-newmark/a-nerds-take-on-the-futur_b_325544.html

It’s a key point, but I don’t for a second believe that SM will always be less trustworthy than MSM.

Two thoughts:

1) Broadcast.
Mack, you’d know this better than I, but the numbers, the ‘penetration’ of social media in our local community is significantly lower than the penetration of any mainstream media, right? The Broadcast model is what we have right now, and that reaches the most ears and eyeballs. Which is why MSM core business is focused on reaching those ears and eyeballs.

Sure, the numbers are dropping, but what I’ve read that’s attributed to marketplace dilution (more sources for info in MSM, people looking at CBC online rather than watching the 6pm news, for example) than new converts to SM to being their *prime* source of news.

2). Trust
The media *are* integrating these tools into their work. But they are still beholding to the same media principles and journalistic practices that have built them the credibility as a trusted source for news — and with that credibility and trust comes an audience.

It’s a long process to build that level of trust with a community, and in a newsroom it can take generations of journalist, each building on the credibility of their predecessors.

Individuals using social media, outside of those newsrooms, just won’t have access to that level of audience until a similar level of trust is achieved amongst the general public.

Back to my original thoughts…SM integration into the newsroom will happen. It may not be as open and instant as everyone would like, but it’ll happen.

I’m sure there was a level of concern, but I guess I’m just too cynical to believe that most people were solely concerned just for the sake of their fellow citizens. They wanted to know the gritty details for the same reasons people read celebrity news. We enjoy watching the drama. Whether we’ll admit it or not.

We don’t we have a right to know what’s going on in a hostage situation because it’s an ongoing criminal investigation. The only information we NEEDED to know that day was that there was a hostage situation at the WCB, police were taking care of it, to avoid the area, and buses/traffic is being detoured. Which I believe is what the majority of the news outlets were reporting.

The rest of the information – for example, the hostage-taker’s demands, or the gender breakdown of the hostages – is completely superfluous. Tell me how any of that information makes a difference on your level of concern, whether you get it right away or wait until the gunman has been apprehended and everyone is safe.