Why I Value “Old Media”
by Miki Saxon
A note from a reader posed this question.
Although I find the articles you link to interesting and probably would never see them if you didn’t I do not understand why you don’t link to more bloggers and other online stuff instead of the NY Times, Fortune, Wired, Inc, etc.
He obviously does read me, since that’s a very accurate list of media to which I frequently link, so it’s a fair question.
I partly answered it in an old post referring to what I term the games required by social media, but there are much larger reasons—facts, depth and veracity.
Let me give you an example.
On August 6th the NYT published an article about HCA, a giant for profit hospital chain taken private by a group of private equity firms and since gone public again. HCA was involved in a Medicare fraud case and paid $1.7 billion in fines and repayments; now it’s back on the hot seat for performing unnecessary cardiac procedures to drive up profits.
(The bold is mine.)
Details about the procedures and the company’s knowledge of them are contained in thousands of pages of confidential memos, e-mail correspondence among executives, transcripts from hearings and reports from outside consultants examined by The Times, as well as interviews with doctors and others. A review of those communications reveals that rather than asking whether patients had been harmed or whether regulators needed to be contacted, hospital officials asked for information on how the physicians’ activities affected the hospitals’ bottom line.
A week later The Times followed up with another article showing how HCA has become a role model for hospital profitability; not better care, but more money.
I’m sure the blogging and commentary world that follows Medicare and healthcare in general has been weighing in, but what they don’t do is the research.
They don’t have the time, money, skill, patience and probably not the desire to wade through the paperwork.
So-called old media also seems to set the ethical bar higher and with greater consequences to those who choose to lie and cheat.
Finally, bloggers and commentators read these investigative stories and offer their opinions and spin on them just as I do.
Many of these have good value, it’s just that I would rather discuss and opine on the original than comment on the commentary.
Flickr image credit: IvanWalsh.com
August 30th, 2012 at 8:57 pm
I love your honest Miki. You always tell it like you see it.
Even if you don’t like the game, you can always opine on someone else’s opinion. It shows you value non “old media” types and get that you don’t have to work for the NYT to have a relevant idea. Sure, it’s not as researched as the Times – but does it really need to be? Don’t others life experiences have value too?
Just a thought. Hope you’re great!
August 30th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
Hi Phil, nice to see you here.
You are absolutely right about opining on another opinion, but that’s just it; it’s an opinion. Which is fine, if you aren’t looking for facts. When I’m looking for information on a subject I’m typically looking for objective facts—or as objective as can be found these days—as opposed to subjective opinion.
New media is great for opinions, insights from life experience and commentary on reported news, but because it’s opinion it may or may not be true and often facts are the last thing subjective commentary wants to hear; the birthers are a good example of that.