Kinsella argues bloggers are having more fun than the MSM
In the little spare time I have, I occasionally enjoy reading Warren Kinsella's blog where he provides his take on the issues of the day. One of his posts today had me laughing. It was his analysis on the endless bloggers vs. MSM debate raging online.
There is much talk out there about the future direction of our mainstream media and blogs. Will they survive in their current form? Is there a business model to make blogging financially viable? Is there a peaceful co-existence that will work for both mediums?
Kinsella responded to a column written in today's Globe and Mail whereby Ray MacGregor writes about blogging and social media:
No one is expecting “social media" to go away – though it has never been explained exactly what is so social about picking away at your BlackBerry in a meeting or sitting alone in a room staring at a dusty computer screen.
I'm not saying it should go away – just that those dealing in it need to know what it is and what it isn't.
In the ubiquitous cyberworld of blogs and tweets and anonymous comment, what has come to matter more than anything else is the number of hits a certain story receives. The more hits means, in most cases, the larger the audience, and while reaching more readers and viewers is a good thing on one level, it is also a concern for those who believe journalism is about content and information more than reaction.
Kinsella's take on MacGregor's article is quite funny. He posts the following:
Personally, I don’t think he has anything to worry about. The so-called New Media will never supplant the old farts. They write better than we do. They are less predictable than we are. And, most of all, they generate original content – we merely comment on it. Very different. (But if the MSM continues to ape my species, instead of sticking to what it does best, the MSM is done like dinner.)
Why, then, do we keep seeing nervous, self-doubting articles like Roy’s? Ten reasons:
1. Bloggers are writing for a growing audience; journalists are writing for a shrinking audience.
2. Bloggers can’t be let go. Journalists live in continual fear of being let go.
3. Bloggers don’t have anyone telling them what to do. Journalists do, all the time.
4. Journalists used to believe they could write stories that could change things. Now they know they don’t change things much at all – and that bloggers have the ability to change things, too.
5. Bloggers seem to be having more fun.
6. Bloggers don’t have a beat. They can write about whatever they want, whenever they want.
7. Bloggers get to do what most news reporters would prefer to be doing, which is analyzing the news, and not just reporting it.
8. Bloggers don’t have many rules. Journalists have to put up with tons of rules.
9. Bloggers can post stuff that is written up, or filmed, or heard, or any of the above. Journalists don’t have as many options. They have to choose.
10. Internet is the future. Newsprint is the past.
And that’s why the MSM hates the New Media. You’re welcome.
Ding...Ding. Round 7 is over. Let the debate continue! After reading Warren's piece, you can see why I thought it might be fun to share it all with you.
- Post by Daniel