On our new social networking site, roguecurrent.com, there’s a Media Critics group, of which I’m a member. In one discussion about the future of the mainstream media, a writer identified as Pogo suggests that independent media will overtake the MSM. Following is my reply, in which I suggest that may not be the good thing that some imagine:
Pogo notes that there are “independent media” providing news and that will eliminate the need for mainstream media. I think it’s great to have more voices offering their viewpoints, but I don’t think it should be confused with an unbiased news report. The main topics on the Rogue Indymedia Center are, in order: Promoting a peace rally, promoting a rally in Salem by the Rural Oregon Project and Human Dignity groups, a meeting to discuss rent control (already run in the Trib), a blog on the plight of Iraqi refugees, a piece from Physicians for Social Responsibility about air pollution in Medford (already in the Trib) and articles from Peace and Justice Works and Veterans for Peace about blocking the Oregon National Guard from being deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan (already in the Trib). Most of these items are basically press releases and they all obviously match the viewpoint of Rogue Indymedia Center. As I said, that’s fine for what it is, but it’s not news coverage. There is a place for advocacy journalism, but if that’s all we’re left with, it will be a sad day for an informed society. p.s., I have a Twitter account and that’s not news coverage, either.
I do want to be clear that I’m not dissing Rogue Indymedia — but just trying to make the distinction between what we do and what they do. Both have value, but there seems to be this idea that we can get along fine without some central sources of news and information. If all conservatives get their news from Rush and all liberals get theirs from Air America, how can we ever have an intelligent, shared conversation?
