To give you a personal example to illustrate my point, I was in the very lucky position in Copenhagen to be in possession of leaked documents on a regular basis.
One such document was a leaked memo updating the United Nation's Climate Secretariat on the state of the treaty talks. A very trusted source sent it to me and as one who has been in possession of many leaked documents over the years, I knew it was authentic and I ran hard with it. I posted it on several blogs, including Huffington Post. I also pushed it out hard on Twitter, Facebook and news filtering social media channels like StumbleUpon, Digg and Reddit.
The comments and emails started rolling in very quickly and many were asking: "Is this document real?" Fair enough, I responded saying that my source was solid and that I had taken adequate steps to ensure its authenticity. But the skepticism continued until this comment popped up: "The leaked memo is real, it has just been reported in the Guardian."
Now don't get me wrong, I love the Guardian, in fact, I write for them from time to time and I consider their columnist George Monbiot a friend. But the article the Guardian had published had taken no further steps to verify the leaked memo than I had.
The very same "media industrial complex" activists accuse of bias, inaccuracy and all sorts of underhanded agendas remains the trusted source of information, while reports using social media channels emanating from within the activist community itself remain questionable.
Of course, it could be that people just don't trust me. But I have seen this exact scenario played out many times over the years where new information that breaks on a blog is not "authentic" until mainstream media has reported on it.
Fascinating observations - for all its faults there is still something important about the big media brands and the resources, processes and experience that underpins them.
Happy New Year Trevor! Yes, same for podcasters, but little by little...
Posted by: Salty | 02 January 2010 at 06:37 AM