Watching a Reliable Sources podcast discussing the rise of "minutiae news"; what Kurtz calls "hyperspeed journalism" http://bit.ly/gZOjv8

My reaction so far:  Then stop pissing out the “minutiae” and offer something that covers things better;  add more “heft”.  But yikes,  then we’d have to keep writing more stuff,  rather than shoveling out leftovers to feed those “junkies”. 

This is yet another angle on the inane , endless stories on how the Internet is dumbing us down.  This segment sounds like it is telling us that if we want more content,  and want it quicker ad timeli-er,  then we’re just going to have to settle for “minutiae”.   What a crock.  They’re telling me that the coverage that is already out there is all that is possible?  That’s self-deprecating. 

Once again,  I see an opening into one of my peeves about churches and church organizations and their attempts (or lack thereof)  to put content out there.  They open up Facebook pages and blogs and give them Share buttons to help spread the word about this article or that.  But isn’t part  (or prefereably MOST of the content in this “social networking” age) of the content actually supposed to be “social”?  I rarely see (in fact,  I can’t think of one organization that actually “interacts” with their “community”.  The replies and comments are all audience and no organizational representation.  Aside from the occasional “moderator” “stepping in” and saying something about civility or clarifying the “rules of engagement”,  apparently one of those rules is that the organization says “no comment”.   ARGGGGGGGHHHHHH!   Why?  The church related blog/social network has no thoughts of their own?  Their people are not themselves “part of the community?”   It’s just another form of this “view from nowhere” that has bubbled up as a big issue during all the recent argument about “journalistic  objectivity”. Except with us,  it’s “theological objectivity”.  Is there really such a thing?  Sounds a bit fishy to me,  especially when you consider we call ourselves the Body of Christ.  Always “two sides” to an issue? Hah? 

Come on, now.  Let’s dispense with the practice of filling the “social part”  with “minutiae”. Intentional “minutiae” at that.  Whoah,  we need more “filler” to put out there so we can be “social”.  No. NO.  We have to actually INVEST resources in the building of a truly social web.  It’s a “content” piece just as much as the “stories” and the wares that we want to sell.  That means that there are people who are a part of and active participants in the online community.  You have to be there to be accessible to the people you serve.  We wouldn’t say,  as a church,  that we are starting this whole new series of classes and tell everybody where the rooms are and yet have no staff or organization to it.  And yet this is what we so often do with "social media”.   And if there is staff assigned,  they are “the man behind  the curtain”.

No,  social media is not just a facade,  else it is not “social” at all.  It has to be an integral piece of the strategy.  That means research and development,  and an awareness of how church social media might be/should be/must be different from the social media one of those marketing-oriented secular “experts” might recommend for us.