But I don’t think that should go unquestioned or unchallenged. I suspect most organizations would agree with me when talking about OTHER organizations.
Mathew
David Cohn
82

But as platforms become more and more accessible, won’t organizations be able to challenge them directly? Won’t it be useful for audiences to see that conflict out in the open?

I view the role of press as increasingly becoming more of a moderator or curator. I’m not saying that’s what Mathew Ingram is suggesting, but that’s what I see happening. Press observes, reports, and provides commentary on what occurs. But I think it’s a good thing if people can get stuff directly from the source. Maybe this will increase the empathy, or make it worse—some reporters are great at conveying feeling and emotion.

Of course context and veracity is still needed in almost every situation, and that’s the role of organizations/reporters/moderators to me. But I think platforms will be better served (and better able to operate in this constantly-shifting future of expression) if they understand they’re not the only voice that matters, or the most important.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.