With the democratization of media we've come to rely on a bunch of terms that are now completely unnecessary. These include "social media," "user generated content" and - my favorite - "consumer generated media." Do any of these matter any more? I dislike all of these words and have stopped using them. Eric Hansen proposes we go with new media but that doesn't quite work either. The reason is it's ALL media. The lexicon will hopefully change.
The problem with all of these balkanized phrases is that they connote that the content created by digitally empowered individuals is somehow bush league. It's like we're a separate entity from the rest of the so-called "mainstream" journalists, filmmakers, photographers, etc. who do what we do and get paid more for it. We sit in a special dish like leftover meatloaf so we need a special name. If you use these phrases you're unintentionally perpetuating that myth.
I've been chronicling the changes in media over the last three years on my blog and been in awe of it even longer. In 2004, 2005 and into 2006, as "we" became more influential, the phrases were helpful as the world began to take notice. But now, it's different. We've arrived.
In 2007 we have people like Rafat Ali and Michael Arrington who blog for a living and do nicely. We have startups like PodTech.net and vloggers like Robert Scoble that are recreating what Tech TV was unable to sustain. Are these individuals part of the "mainstream media" because they get paid to create full-time or are they part of the "social media" because they're more accessible? it all seems kinda silly, huh?
The fact is that everyone who is contributing to the dialogue - be it in video, text or photos - has earned the right to be called media. Let's can the compartmentalization and recognize once and for all the world has changed. We are all media - period.
