We’re mainstream, too
: I hate that everyone is starting to call established media “mainstream media” (MSM, to its friends).
That assumes that bloggers aren’t mainstream. We are.
I’ve taken to calling the big guys “big media” (and we’ll ignore the joyful abbreviation). That works for me, at least for now (until we get big). You could call them “institutional media.”
But let’s not cede the turf of the mainstream. I argue that as blogs grow, they take on the wisdom of the crowds and, in sum, will represent the mainstream better than any institution that purports to represent the mainstream.
I say we’re citizens’ media. They’re big media.
: Jay Rosen has taken to calling Big Media “legacy media.” Maybe. But I don’t think any medium is cut off from its forebears; the legacy will continue through blogs to the next thing.
Ed Cone in the comments goes for “corporate media” v. “personal media.” But look at Gawker Media; it’s a corporation already but it’s made of blogs and bloggers. I don’t think business structure does it.
Another poster still likes “old” v. “new” media. My problem with that is that we’re new today but tomorrow we, too, will be old (and something else will be new).
SUNDAY UPDATE: Jay Rosen adds in the comments:
Interesting discussion. Actually, Jeff, I was writing about the appearence of “legacy media” as a sign ‘o the times, zeitgeist thing. I haven’t taken to using the term myself.
One of the things I dislike about the blogosphere is that it comes up with inelegant names that grate on the ear; “blogosphere” is one. MSM is another. In sorting through the suggestions here, there are two different scales to use: one is insight (descriptive power) and the other is elegance (economy + beauty = elegance).
Institutional vs. personal is the most descriptive pair of terms. Old vs. new media is probably the most elegant.
