My managing editor told me about this. On Oct. 16, a post went up on My Bottles Up, a blog chronicling a woman’s life and her young son. The blogger, Nic, saidg her young son was taken from her by the TSA while she was the airport. The TSA then responded in its own blog post.
The story basically ballooned from there. Yet, as my editor pointed out, the local media didn’t cover it. Instead, the conversation only continued in the blog world. Nic continued to discuss the reaction to her post, even taking down her site for a little bit. At last count, the TSA blog had almost 400 comments on this one post.
In the past, this would have been something the local paper/TV station might have covered. Now, social media makes them irrelevant. That’s sad. Where is the need for local papers when local bloggers can cover the same things and get more attention for their posts?
I’ve been thinking a lot about paid content and newspapers. Clearly newspapers have to do something about the internet and people getting stuff for free. But here’s the thing. I wouldn’t pay to get my news online. No one I know would.
What is the point when a blogger, who does subscribe to the site, can simply talk about the information on their blog? Freedom of speech allows this to happen. So one person might pay for the content, but then they share it with even more people, who share it with others, etc.
There isn’t a solution to this, yet. You can’t stop bloggers from talking about a news article they read. And it would be incredibly ironic if the press, which heralds the First Amendment, tried to stifle another group’s free speech rights.