Working on an article about PR and technology stuff which has led to a PR surfing technology frenzy. Some links worthy of recording, probably more for myself than anyone else. From Bayosphere – Dan Gilmore – some snippets that relate to my research but I do strongly encourage reading the entire post to put it in context.
Nicholas Carr – The amorality of Web 2.0
And so all the things that Web 2.0 represents – participation, collectivism, virtual communities, amateurism – become unarguably good things, things to be nurtured and applauded, emblems of progress toward a more enlightened state. But is it really so?
and further down some world saving concepts with the point that we need to consider both sides:
And yet, at its best, the mainstream media is able to do things that are different from – and, yes, more important than – what bloggers can do. Those despised "people in a back room" can fund in-depth reporting and research. They can underwrite projects that can take months or years to reach fruition – or that may fail altogether. They can hire and pay talented people who would not be able to survive as sole proprietors on the Internet. They can employ editors and proofreaders and other unsung protectors of quality work. They can place, with equal weight, opposing ideologies on the same page. Forced to choose between reading blogs and subscribing to, say, the New York Times, the Financial Times, the Atlantic, and the Economist, I will choose the latter. I will take the professionals over the amateurs.
But I don’t want to be forced to make that choice.
and in closing
Like it or not, Web 2.0, like Web 1.0, is amoral. It’s a set of technologies – a machine, not a Machine – that alters the forms and economics of production and consumption. It doesn’t care whether its consequences are good or bad.
He is stating that web 2.0 tech is like a gun. It can be used for good or evil. And aren’t we supposed to hate the sin but love the sinner? Another take-away is that MSM is really venture capital for reporting – and while we aren’t all VC types, I do recognize the value going public through vc brought to google and hence all of us.
I also spent some time on theNewPR wiki and I find it lacking in relevant content. There are lists of who to pitch, which from a content perspective makes it more like an AMA wiki than a strategic PR tool. Arrrgh. And yes I should go post, but I have to admit that the login is an obstacle, mostly for fear of the "approved" process. I am not Steve Rubel and don’t pretend to be. I register all the time for sites, and who hasn’t had a wikipedia entry rolled back, but the approval process is a weird mental process that is currently enough to stop my participation.