I was at lunch meeting the other day, listening to four representatives of the Milwaukee media discuss how they are now using social media a great deal. They all said Twitter is a good way to reach out to them, they all have presences on Facebook and how their blogs give them chances to do more in-depth writing.
As a note, the Southeastern Wisconsin Chapter of the Public Relations Society of America put on the panel discussion. I am a member of the Milwaukee-based chapter. I am also a member of the chapter’s Social Media Committee. Many of the chapter’s of the members are beginning to explore social media. A few, like me, have jumped in headfirst.
The presentations were well done. As I worked in the Milwaukee media market for two decades, I know those people. The panelists were from the local NBC affiliate, two local business publications and a completely on-line entertainment and music site.
However, as I sat and listened to my former colleagues, I was struck by something. Do we really need those outlets anymore? Do we need any media outlets anymore? Or has Social Media taken over completely?
For me, this was a very radical thought. I spent 26-years as a print reporter. I decided to be reporter when I was 12-years-old. That’s true. One night in the pre-cable television days, I saw a movie about newspapering called “The Front Page.” It was original 1931 version starring Adolphe Menjou. I was hooked. I followed that path until seven years ago when I saw how the business I loved was sinking. That’s when I made the jump to marketing and public relations.
Now, I wonder more and more if we need the my old avocation. The television reporter made the argument that we do because we need someone to filter and interpret the news.
I know that a lot of people on both ends of the political spectrum think there is come of big conspiracy to make the news favor a particular point of view. That’s what they hear when someone says “filter and interpret.” It’s not true.
All good reporters have a b.s monitor. When someone tells them something, they filter the information through that monitor. Many times, the needle points to the b.s side. Plus, any good reporter tries to put information into context. What does it mean when a government body announces cuts of $10 million to its budget. The reporter’s job is to provide a context, an interpretation, for that budget cut. How many jobs will be lost? What programs will get cut?
However, I am not sure that people want that service anymore. If someone who uses the Web, as the primary source of information is a fairly smart, they are going to check more than one source for their news. If you read two or three online reports, check the blogs and follow the Twitter feed, you can develop a pretty accurate picture of what is the real story.
I have often written about how social media is cutting out the need to advertise in the traditional ways. If the marketing program is implemented correctly, traditional media only has to be a small part of the effort.
Now, I wonder if the same thing is happening to news reporting. Twitter seems to be taking over the “breaking news” reports that radio and television do. Bloggers are filling the gaps left by publications that have cut their staffs and space they devote to news. Sites such as the Huffington Post – which is both blog and news site – are now viewed as players in the media world. I don’t know about other such sites, but the Huffington Post staffs White House press conferences. That’s acceptance.
There is nothing to indicate this trend is going to slow down. If anything, is it going accelerate. Maybe there will be a time in the near future when traditional media is no longer relevant.
This is one topic I really curious about what you all think. Please comment and let me know.