In a way, they are like traditional media. They provide the original source of content that usually creates our discontent.
You know it’s funny; there is one very successful YouTube video creator who I never understood. But I was reading The Daily Telegraph a week ago, reading the letters and editorials (about nothing of very much interest) and I had such a revelation!
The purpose isn’t to provide information so much as it is to get people excited (or “pissed off” to borrow from the local vernacular). And then people would react and respond, either being asked randomly off the streets of Sydney for their opinion, or adding comments via email or snail mail or SMS services.
And then these people would buy the newspapers again (or read online), react to new articles as well as other people’s reactions to their earlier feedback.
My heart sunk a little.
Isn’t this what the much heralded “conversation” is?
Does this mean that the most “engaging” forums will be not those that offer the greatest insights and quality information, but merely those most talented in arousing emotional frenzy in others?