Peer to peer journalism is basically the practice of using yer melon to reality test the crap on your phone.
An example: I have a friend in a mid-high legal role in telecom. This person can be “my guy” to chat with about some issue in telecom I have discovered in the news that is giving me heartburn.
I cannot express my recent realization how bizarrely disconnected we are from our own ability to phone a friend and pick their brains. I mean, schedule it by messenger to manage the anxiety as needed. But it seems sort of important to get a clear view from higher ground these days.
I didn’t think this is a time for us to chill out. There is really fucked up stuff happening around the world.
So correct. The time to chill out is after we have all talked to each other instead of solving it all on our own.
It sounds like you’re talking about getting an expert to gut check a story. That’s a great idea.
Seems relevant:
I’m not sure I’d call it journalism though. Journalism itself often includes: (some) internal fact checking, legal review (cause it’s easy to accidentally say something defamatory), legal defense (because jerks will sue you anyway), editing, and research support.
Exactly! It’s time to circle up and be our own fact checkers to the extent we can.
Everyone knows someone who knows more than they do about something.
I gave it the P2P journalism name mostly to get this discussion going. I figured it would draw in a crowd of the deep geeks who love that stuff.
But really, we can’t trust any information on the internet completely. We need trusted networks of real people in our lives to ground us in lived reality.
I especially like the idea of not just passively being angry or upset at news. Yes I consider too much online venting to be a passive activity, as in ineffective.
Check in with a friend, everyone likes to be asked their opinion and they probably need to be needed right now too.
You scared the crap outta me when I just read the title and thought you wanted “Pay 2 Play” journalism.
I like your idea, but it relies on being connected to people who have education/expertise/authority on subject matter. Great if you have them, but can’t be a reasonable expectation for most people to have good access.
Oh that’s the point though. Even people who don’t think they are “well-connected” are just a few hops from Kevin Bacon. Or a person who works at a bank during a banking crisis. Lots of folks know people who work at a bank.
The point is to stop stewing and start asking. Ask anyone who might know even a bit more than you on a particular thing.
Doesn’t that seem healthy?
Your argument was about talking to friends to gain insight into things you know less about, not finding the six degrees of separation that connect you.
I agree with the original premise of talking to friends with a variety of backgrounds to compliment your world view, but I also holdfast that it is privileged to assume that most people will have connections with friends or even friends-of-friends that can get them trustworthy and informed information.
Scruffy the janitor knows more than you about toilets, boilers and boilng toilets. Think to ask him when the bowl is steaming.
I’m just saying maybe we should all get out more?
Agreed!
I think the most obvious way to do this is just to prioritizes asking people and books answers instead of searching online or news. If there’s an issue that causes you stress ask a friend, someone like your example, or read about the topic.
I don’t get how your p2p system would work. How could one prove the representative on x topic was legit? Guess this is sort of like having a PhD in that field? This reminds me of the founding of the digital dictionary of Buddhism’s critique of Wikipedia being anonymous as it doesn’t encourage writers to be truthful.
Way too complex!
Stop stewing.
Seek comfort in the counsel of friends!