Can the Paper Control the Conversation

Washington Post editors are working on damage control and @Mashable wants us to take a poll on what the "should" do.

Guess what. Reader of the new media's "big media" want old media to be more open. The "they should" choice won the poll.

The 20th Century was unique in history. Mankind got the technology to speak to a mass audience about mass production products that could be distributed globally. Before this, people talked to people, did business with neighbors, most never traveled far and for the most part consumed what was produced locally.

Mass communications had one flaw.. it was mostly one-way. So companies with the biggest printing presses, most powerful transmitters and biggest budgets won.

To fill the papers with entertainment to keep readers looking at the ads, publishers employed writers and reporters. They gave them free reign over what they wrote because the market would read great content more than blather about the advertisers, but the goal was always to deliver those ads.

We had a couple of generations of "journalists" and some very smart people in that "profession" telling themselves, and us, that we needed them to watch out for us with "integrity"

We forgot that they were the filler material and lauded them. And why not, they were smart, they were writing about important issues and they had the audience.

Once the Internet grew to it's promise of no central control, the need for these aggregators was gone. People could talk to people, in mass or in private, whenever and wherever they desire.

I don't worry about #Mashable getting too big and trying to reign in the conversation. It's got the new media mentality. They started the conversation, and now I went a different way. Their popularity comes from adding real value in the aggregation, not control of information.

But the dinosaurs are standing in the tar pit. They are very wealthy dinosaurs, and they have huge infrastructures to keep them from sinking.. It's going to take a while for it to crumble

How long will it be till we stop caring about their editorial policies?

Amplify’d from mashable.com

The Memo

As a result, the following memo was sent to staff by Post Managing Editor Raju Narisetti, who is no longer on Twitter after offering his thoughts on more spending for health care:

This week, some Post staffers responded to outside critics via our main
Twitter account. At issue was a controversial piece we’d published online. The intent in replying was to defend the decision to publish the piece, but it was misguided both in describing our rationale for publishing the piece and as a matter of practice. It shouldn’t have been sent.

Even as we encourage everyone in the newsroom to embrace social media and relevant tools, it is absolutely vital to remember that the purpose of these Post branded accounts is to use them as a platform to promote news, bring in user generated content and increase audience engagement with Post content. No branded Post accounts should be used to answer critics and speak on behalf of the Post, just as you should follow our normal journalistic guidelines in not using your personal social media accounts to speak on behalf of the Post.

Perhaps it would be useful to think of the issue this way: when we write a story, our readers are free to respond and we provide them a venue to do so. We sometimes engage them in a private verbal conversation, but once we enter a debate personally through social media, this would be equivalent to allowing a reader to write a letter to the editor–and then publishing a rebuttal by the reporter. It’s something we don’t do. Please feel free to flag Marcus, Liz and me when you see something out there that you think deserves a response from the Post. As we routinely do, we will work with Kris Coratti and her team to respond when appropriate.