Isn't this all kind of muddled? Katz argues here that Open Media rejects the informational tyranny of having a few educated individuals tell the masses what to think - even as he himself tells the masses what to think about Open Media. We might be talking in a two-way forum here, but the simple fact that content distribution functions as a kind of meritocracy (with regard to accuracy, insight, and timeliness) means that some posts are just better than others. We might have a more ideal meritocracy of information online, but it doesn't change the fundamental one-to-many orientation of media.
Whenever I read about new media/open media/whatever, I can't help feeling the assumptions they're based on -- namely, that everyone has something to contribute, that everybody's opinion means something or counts, and that consensus is more important than an individual educated voice -- are in fact pulled out of some ideal universe. The truth is that most people's opinions are NOT factually based or carefully considered (ahem ha ha), and that the problem of 'sensemaking' was solved a long time ago through the invention of journalism. Obviously there's a tension between homogenized media and individual opinions - just as there's always a tension in society between big social forces and small individual actions. I imagine we all agree with Katz that more opinions are good - but since the point of having an opinion is to homogenize others and make them agree, his prediction of The Death of Closed Media Because of Open Media seems tautological. (To me, anyway).
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't this all kind of muddled? Katz argues here that Open Media rejects the informational tyranny of having a few educated individuals tell the masses what to think - even as he himself tells the masses what to think about Open Media. We might be talking in a two-way forum here, but the simple fact that content distribution functions as a kind of meritocracy (with regard to accuracy, insight, and timeliness) means that some posts are just better than others. We might have a more ideal meritocracy of information online, but it doesn't change the fundamental one-to-many orientation of media.
Whenever I read about new media/open media/whatever, I can't help feeling the assumptions they're based on -- namely, that everyone has something to contribute, that everybody's opinion means something or counts, and that consensus is more important than an individual educated voice -- are in fact pulled out of some ideal universe. The truth is that most people's opinions are NOT factually based or carefully considered (ahem ha ha), and that the problem of 'sensemaking' was solved a long time ago through the invention of journalism. Obviously there's a tension between homogenized media and individual opinions - just as there's always a tension in society between big social forces and small individual actions. I imagine we all agree with Katz that more opinions are good - but since the point of having an opinion is to homogenize others and make them agree, his prediction of The Death of Closed Media Because of Open Media seems tautological. (To me, anyway).