Both articles were good (neither great) at presenting what some of the current obstacles are facing digital media. Those that choose the digital space as their platform of preference are at a tumultuous crossroads with two and a half centuries of the print industry. And hold on folks, it’s getting bumpy.

I found that the core argument in both articles to be the definition of what a blogger is and the role they should play in dealing with the current media format.

Seelye struggles with having to identify Ms. Mayhill Fowler as either a contributor for the Huffington Post or just John Q. Citizen who writes in her spare time. Fowler argues that she was invited to an event as an active supporter of Mr. Obama and not as a correspondent for HuffPo and that she was not properly vetted as such. The lack of clarity concerning Ms. Fowler’s role led to her “press” coverage of the event. This in turn led to the whole of Pennsylvania up in arms over being “bitter”. This event may have help contribute to Mrs. Clinton’s victory in that state last night.

Mr. Arango’s article covers the relationship Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban has with the mainstream media in this new era of digital reports. Cuban a blogger himself is wrestling with how to handle bloggers in the locker room and on game days.

Over the next few weeks I will be polling my colleagues here at Morpheus. Since a majority of us here are bloggers, I would like to know whether or not independent bloggers should be viewed as official media. I would like to get an idea of what my contemporaries think before I put forth my final analysis on this matter.

So I pose them same question to you, the reader of blogs. Are bloggers media? Or do some media outlets simply blog?

Tumblr is another way to blog essentially, however in their help section they say, “to make a simple analogy: If blogs are journals, tumblelogs are scrapbooks.” They actually are listed in wikipedia and they describe this as, “a blog that favors short-form, mixed-media posts over the longer editorial posts.”

What is great about tumblr and the reason I wanted to share it with everyone is the ease in which you can blog, and the amount of functions available to you!

You can click any of the following options and it customizes how you can effectively execute your post,:
Text
Photo
Quote
Link
Chat
Audio
Video

The coolest thing that I found on Tumblr is under Account Extras.
You obviously have the option to bookmarklet this, so you can easily access this.
You can also add them to your address book as:
w8sac3me@tumblr.com
After you do this you are then able to post text, pictures, MP3’s or videos from your cell phone. You can only send videos though if your phone is Vimeo enabled. The subject line in your phone can act as a place for you to write a caption for anything you upload.

You can also browse your blog from your phone by adding /mobile to your blog URL.

MY FAVORITE part of this is that you can download a widget for this so that you can write in your widget and just hit post to Tumblr!

And for all of us Instant Messenger fans you can also add TumblrBot to your buddy list and this allows you to post straight from your instant messenger

Tumblr also allows you to add “Followers” to your blog, which essentially means the people who have added you their friend list and are following the updates of your blog .

One of the fundamental underpinnings of the (dare I say it) Web 2.0 revolution has been transparency and the ability to access information free of charge. The openness that has accompanied the new digital zeitgeist has without a doubt made an honest man out of a slew of otherwise nefarious individuals

This being the case when does openness and candor become a liability? Does it ever? Or is there a point when you are sharing just too much. I agree that organizations should disclose when they have “arrangements” with others so the enduser is privy to all the facts. But do I really need to know every last detail of every ongoing an agency or blogger may have.

As the walled gardens of the digital world come crashing down all around us will there be a standard operating altitude from which information will be openly presented or will it continue to be open for interpretation?

Walmart learned a hard lesson from Edelman on astroturfing a few years back. Will it take several more “life lessons” before the industry draws a line in the sand.

For a closer look on this topic visit Adam Broitman over at A Media Circ.us.

Because does anyone really care where I ate lunch today?

My name is Eric and I work with emerging technologies here at Morpheus Media.

The following post is written by me, and is only a reflection of my personal beliefs as I have colleagues here who will argue several of the points I am about to draw out for you.

That being said, I am a very busy man these days (my boss is probably reading this with you right now ☺) but, there are a few blogs I try to make time for everyday. One of them is Doc Searls Weblog.

Anybody involved in social media will know who he is. For anyone that is not familiar with the Good Doc I suggest taking some time and going through some of his previous posts. Beyond being an industry icon, Searls has great vision and an inviting writing style. He often eloquently navigates complex subject matters with ease and grace. You will be better for reading his thoughts, I promise.

That being said, in his latest post entitled “The only real social networks are personal ones” (he is completely wrong).

Okay, not completely wrong, but a little off the mark in my opinion. Searls references a question presented by Jeremiah Owyang “Should Brands Join or Build Their Own Social Network?”

Searls provides several thoughtful insights into social network structures. He suggests that branding and social networking are somewhat incompatible for him. In attempting to answer Owyang’s original question, Searls puts forth that “I’m not sure social networks are “built” and that it “Seems to me they’re more organic than structural”.

It was these two statements that caused me to take pause and reflect.

If “words have meanings” and they do, then Searls is missing the point of the potential role marketers can play in social networks.

I contest that an individual does not have multiple social networks as Searls eludes, simply multiple platforms from which to connect to their singular social network. If two people are connected through Facebook, but not lets say Twitter, then do they cease being networked upon alternating platforms? I say no.

This brings me to my biggest gripe. A person’s social network grows organically and cannot be built. To a degree this is true. But only in the way a backyard garden cannot be built, but most grow organically on its own. However, a little constructive help from a seasoned green thumb will help foster a more productive piece of real estate. This my friend sounds like the work of a Brand Manager, perhaps one steeped in online protocols and possessing a strong
understanding of social media.

I don’t think there is a right or wrong answer to this question, only a difference of opinion. So I invite you to spend a minute and read his post and arrive at your opinion, which by-the-way, should sound something like mine.