You should write that post by commenting on this post about that very subject you mention:

http:// insidethecubicle.blogs.co...g_away_fro.html
Jay Rosen | Homepage | 07.05.06 - 11:07 pm | #

Now I really know where you stand!

Since the item was less about your post, and more about how companies are using new digital channels to command (versus engage) their consumers, I can easily make the change. Consider it done.

On another note, I am interested in your perspective on whether PR practitioners' long-standing competencies of advocacy and engagement are scalable in an age of hyper-fragmented media (and media consumers).

I'd like to post a separate item, but this time more appropriately link to your "the people formerly known as..." post.

If you have some thoughts, please e-mail. My readers are a mix of digitally savvy and traditional PR pros.

Thanks.
Peter Himler | Homepage | 07.02.06 - 10:28 pm | #

No, you are still not reading correctly.

What I said is that even those who are most active in becoming producers and authors and creators are still consumers of media, and don't have anything against taking in a good ball game or movie or radio program via "big media." That is not a purist's but a realist's outlook.

You can denouce new media purists if you want. They might deserve it. My point was I am not an example of one, and so you should remove the link, not necessarily change your post.
Jay Rosen | Homepage | 07.02.06 - 1:05 am | #

Jay,

While you acknowledge that "Big Media pleasures will not be denied us," you also describe traditional media consumers (e.g., most of the country) as sitting "passively," "motionless," and "glassy-eyed" in bed. Who's being snotty here?

The point of my post was not to denigrate you or your most insightful post on "the people formerly known as the audience," but rather to draw attention to how some marketers have simply melded their "command-and-control" ways with the new digital tools.

In other words, many companies are still missing the boat on creating "the conversation" -- a fact I'm sure you could appreciate. As for my use of the word "purist," you make a valid point. I'll amend.

Thanks for your comments.
Peter Himler | Homepage | 07.01.06 - 8:03 am | #

"New media purist" is snotty and inaccurate, and you should take down that link. Here is what your new media purist's post says:

Look, media people. We are still perfectly content to listen to our radios while driving, sit passively in the darkness of the local multiplex, watch TV while motionless and glassy-eyed in bed, and read silently to ourselves as we always have.

Should we attend the theatre, we are unlikely to storm the stage for purposes of putting on our own production. We feel there is nothing wrong with old style, one-way, top-down media consumption. Big Media pleasures will not be denied us.