Dave Rogers pushes back on Doc’s statement on the Chris Lydon show he, Dave Winer and I appeared on that the Net isn’t a medium and is unmediated. “Doc’s weblog is as heavily mediated as network television, it’s just that there’s only one box in the org chart and his name is in it,” Dave writes, part of a long post I can’t summarize adequately. I think it’s helpful, though to drop the word “mediation” and its variants for purposes of this discussion. With that word out of the way, it does seem to me there’s a real difference between mass media that are owned by a handful of people and this other thang. Is the Net “unmediated”? Nah. It’s differently mediated, but that difference is substantial.

(Personal note: Yes, Dave, I am big on the importance of voice. But I’m wary of “authenticity.” Voice can be — always is — artful to one degree or another.)

Some links: Here is Dave’s objection to my assertion that the Web is more world than medium. Here’s Doc’s link to Dave’s post on mediation. And here is Mike Sanders‘ set of assertions disgreeing with Doc and me. [Technorati tags: RadioOpenSource media authenticity cluetrain]

I wrote the above quickly because I was (and am) in Penn Station waiting for a train, but I want to object to Dave’s use of sales terminology, especially in order to analyze Doc. Sure, we can say that all social interactions are about buying and selling…we can say it, but it obscures more than it clarifies. Doc is no more “selling” himself than is anyone who cares about what others think of her. But that’s not “selling.” It’s being human in a shared world.

In fact, Dave’s use of selling terminology I believe draws him into some real confusion: “… authenticity is the difference between speaking the truth and trying to sell it. You can’t sell the truth because, unlike the web and another unhelpful assertion from Doc and Dave, nobody owns it. What people sell is their authority, and so they mediate their messages to make their own authority as pleasing and palatable as possible.” But when we “speak the truth” we generally don’t issue flat assertions; we argue for it. If we’re going to use sales terminology to talk about conversation and truth, isn’t that “trying to sell it” in some sense? Then Dave denies that you can try to sell the truth. Instead you can only sell your own authority. Say what? I’m really confused by this, and I suspect it’s because “selling” – of truth or of authority – isn’t a helpful metaphor here.

Categories: Uncategorized dw