Question. Why does the public care what an editorial writer thinks when there are so many bloggers and others out there with an opinion? Isn't their opinion as valid as the traditional editorial writer/producer?
There is a lot of content on the internet but how much of it is relevant content that furthers the public debate in a productive way?
Web 2.0 is content driven and has an insatiable need for new content every day. How can a traditional editorial staff provide this content? Maybe the answer is that it no longer can.
Perhaps editorial writers/producers must morph into "meta-editorialists" (A meta-editorial is "a researched and evaluated contribution") who act as gatekeepers, moderators and sometimes collaborators with the "best and brightest" minds in the region. This way there should be an endless stream of productive ideas, thoughts and opinions to draw upon and utilize.
On Long Island, there is a wealth of talent and many organizations and individuals who have much to add to the public discourse. The problem is access to traditional media and the built in audience it provides. One can build a large audience over the internet for not a lot of capital, but that still takes quite awhile to accomplish.
By giving a productive voice to a wide range of organizations and individuals, (not just the usual bulletin board "raves" and blog "flames" and YouTube "gotchas") to offer ideas and collaborate in a real way (LIWIKI etc.) traditional media can still serve its function of "neutral observer, dispenser of facts and opinion generator" while playing an active role in the reorganization of Long Island into regional powerhouse and a coordinated entity: Long Island 2.0.
ABS Share
No comments:
Post a Comment