If you, like me, regularly commune with TechCrunch, PaidContent and Techmeme you probably find the media sections of major newspapers somewhat lacking in bite. “Stop Press : Young people express themselves on the internet” and other such insights.
However, I’ve always thought the Observer got it more than most until I read this in their diary column.
“Social netwroking site Facebook was revealed to be one of the tools US Presidential candidate Barack Obama, is using to try to win over voters. Bang go Facebook’s cool credentials”.
I’m trying to pin down exactily what it is that annoys me about that. Does Hoxton lose its cool because politicians canvas there? Does The Observer lose its cool by allowing politicians to write for it? Or does it show that The Observer is a key media player?
Facebook is a social space and a community, by approaching people through it, you approach them on their terms and you show them you appreciate its importance. (Earlier posts on politicians and social networks here and here).
Damn, I just wrote a post about MSM “just not getting it” – how sterotypically new media blogger is that?