Shel Holtz, Communicator

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.

Nathan Schock pointed me to this article in a note to the FIR Friendfeed room. It's the first in a series by new media veteran and online activist Kevin Grandia. Grandia reports that he obtained an important leaked document while at the climate change conference in Copenhagen. but because he exposed it over social media channels nobody took it seriously. Only when a mainstream newspaper reported the document was it deemed authentic. Even the activist community waited for verification from a trusted mainstream source before believing it.

Many of us who love social media get carried away with enthusiasm, believing that more has changed than actually has. It's easy to be lulled into this fantasy because a lot has changed and we've been changed.

But the transition has only just started. We haven't thrown off our dependence on mainstream media. We have no idea what kind of media environment we're ultimately transitioning to, only that it will be very different. One thing unlikely to change is our need for an authoritative voice, someone who strives for accuracy above all things and whose track record and credentials lead us to say, "If they said it, it must be true." Some form of professional journalism will still have a place in this altered landscape.

In the meantime, Grandia's piece makes it clear that we're still in the early stages of this transition (he calls it "online activism 1.7") and traditional mainstream media still matters. It's an important piece; I'm looking forward to Grandia's upcoming entries.