Post 63:08 YouTube vs. the package

Four interesting perspectives on media today. One came from Laurel Papworth, via The Australian’s Mark Day and

I read Phil Gomes’ post about this OpEd from the SMH’s Paul Sheehan today with considerable interest.

The Mark Day piece describes how most news requires little effort for publishers to produce, but is of little value to readers. Day goes on to argue that publishers should instead pursue the news that is hardest to produce, as this has the highest value to readers and to society.

The Sheehan piece lauds social media as a more immediate and revealing source of news than MSM, which is tainted and biased.

There are problems with both articles. Sheehan, I feel, misses the point that most media consumers simply do not have the time to spend three hours searching YouTube for material that helps them to form an opinion. Sheehan did so for Sarah Palin. I didn’t, because like most people I know I simply did not have the time to do so. We’re not columnists or news wonks, so we are not paid to spend big slabs of time chasing up the sources. Either that or we are getting our kids to bed and hoping the second half of the 7:30 report explains something about the day’s events (and doesn’t waste time on a story about the racing industry, but that’s another story). Long story short, I and MANY people I know just don’t have time for the minutiae.

I turn, instead, to mainstream media for a packaged analysis I know to be flawed (objectivity is very hard to attain) but is at least well-intentioned in its efforts to inform and is easily digestable in the time available. This is where I have trouble with Day’s piece as well, because while high value news is important, the sheer volume of media and pace of change means that perspective is as valuable to many people as knowledge.

Sure, that perspective is often flawed. But for me, turning to media whose biases you share or understand is part of the fun of being a media consumer. Doing so consciously is also, I feel, an important act of self-filtering that raises the value of content a media outlet presents to you. And isn’t respecting that self-filtering, and one’s own voice and judgement, a “2.0 act”? Or should we all ignore our own opinions and the tools at our disposal and wait for MSM to deliver “quality” from on high?


One thought on “Post 63:08 YouTube vs. the package

  1. Sorry for the late reply on this post – my RSS has got a little out of control of late.

    I find it incredibly interesting that the “traditional” media outlets are being criticised for being biased and we are being encouraged to turn instead to blogs and YouTube for an honest perspective.

    As a blogger myself I am very aware of how easy it is to get away with outlandish statements, unresearched posts and entirely subjective opinions when blogging (or editing and uploading video content).

    While I agree that traditional media outlets have always struggled with the uneasy balance between independence and funding, I really can’t believe anyone would think that a more accurate truth can be found from citizen journalism.

    Where we like to access information is purely an issue of personal taste because as an educated consumer of media we should all know that nothing is ever entirely independent. Mediums in which anyone can all have a say (blogs, YouTube etc) do hand power to the masses, enabling us to be heard alongside the all-powerful editors and newspaper owners of this world, but that makes them no less biased.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s