Back in the late 1990’s, I was working for a gigantic telecommunications company in Canada. “Convergence” was the buzzword of the moment, and the company was on the bleeding edge of converging cable, Internet and telephony into one big pipe. At the time, the average person didn’t really understand what this meant. Now, 12 years later, convergence is here. There are still many regulatory issues to work out, but the technical challenges have pretty much been addressed. The pipe is now big enough to carry all the information we could ever need, in whatever format we need it. 

However, it’s one thing to jam everything in the pipe. It’s entirely another to get people to figure out how to work with all of it. 

There’s been a lot of talk in the blogosphere lately about the line where citizen journalism ends and traditional media begins. Christopher Penn is talking about it.  Mizz Information is talking about it. I’m not really talking about citizen journalism here, though. (Or am I?)

It used to be that mainstream media (radio and television) largely ignored what was going on in cyberspace. Though they might have been searching through other mass media web sites to find information, they were not really spending much time, or putting much effort into what was happening in the blog or social media space. However, I’ve noticed a shift in this lately. The most popular example of this is CNN’s use of Twitter. Rick Sanchez and a whole host of other journalists are using it as a source of information now. Susan Ormiston of the CBC has “Ormiston Online” where she is “trolling the blogs, Twitter and YouTube” for information about the Canadian elections.

Additionally, if a radio or TV show producer wants to have an expert on to talk about Square Dancing in Orleans, Ontario, they are more likely to find that expert by doing a Google Blog Search than anything else. 

What is happening here is really another form of convergence. It’s convergence of content. The lines are quickly becoming blurred as to who is creating content. If my Dad (see Square Dancing above) can create a blog with quality content that appeals to a certain audience, then isn’t he ulitmately doing what mainstream television and radio has been doing for years? More and more often these days, mainstream media is going to the Web to get their information. They are still creating their own content, but the foundation seems to more and more be coming from the online creators. 

Much like the regulatory mess that technological convergence created, this convergence of content is creating some other interesting debates. Where does citizen journalism end and mainstream journalism begin? What are the risks of “everyman” now being the “man on the street”? And, if the media is using my content ( e.g. when Rick Sanchez or Susan Ormiston uses my Tweets on air), should I be compensated? 

Your turn…

One Response

  1. As nice as it would be to be compensated monetarily for our content being used elsewhere, I suspect there is another benefit to it that might prove to be more important: fame. If we’re credited properly, we can get to be known for the things we say and the way we say them, which should increase the visitors to our twitter stream and/or blogs.

    Since ‘everyman’ is getting the chance to speak, it is becoming important to be someone worth being heard. Fame turns into followers, and that can provide interesting opportunities, or at very least, blog page views … which, I’ve heard, can turn a bit of profit if done right. It does take some effort though, but if it results in a roundabout sort of compensation for getting one’s brilliant thoughts publicized, it’s probably worth it. (I haven’t started doing this yet, myself, but I’m thoroughly convinced that I will offer a bit of advertising on my blog someday soon!)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *