1. An interesting post indeed. There was a conversation on the This week in technology (TwIT) podcast between Leo Laporte, Jason Calakanis and some other folks about how Twitter and feed readers are going to create ‘closed communities’ in that you will opt into the conversations that you want to be involved in and that as humans, we gravitate towards those that agree with us.

    Having an authority like a New York Times or a BBC that pulls together a set of news and then gives it to you offers serendipitous discovery and also exposure to viewpoints you may not necessarily agree with.

    I was thinking about whether choosing a set of bloggers to follow does the same, but the diff is that a blogger usually specializes, whereas aforementioned journalism authorities have wider reach.

    This of course is tertiary to the point you make about the fact that the echo chamber in and of itself is a valuable phenom.

    Good food for thought.

  2. Hi Brenny, thanks for you thoughts and insights 🙂

    I don’t necessarily agree with the we gravitate to those we agree with. Or are there never arguments and disagreements in the blogosphere? 😛

    Blogs are one-to-many. Set views, set subjects, set tone, commenters know pretty well what to expect.

    Communities are different. Three people might come together to discuss social media. One is a Professor of Law looking to debate copyright. One is a rootin’ tootin’ gun totin’ redneck wanting to set up a Guns for Australia social network and another a young gay designer from Oxford Street wanting to discuss how to sell his fashions into MySpace. Three people coming together with a similar PURPOSE but potentially flammable VALUES.

    Did Leo and Jason Calacanis et al agree on all points with each other? Betcha: no 🙂

    …and I find most traditional media homogeneous, and rarely as provoking and maddening as bloggers. Heh. (perhaps it would be easier to contrast a tabloid with a financial paper, but what percentage regularly buys both?)

Comments are closed.