So, Steve Rubel thinks we should retire “social media” from the usual tech lexicon. Right. Might as well say “netcast” as opposed to “podcast” (yes, Leo — I’m talkin’ to you); there might be a rationale behind, but you know what? Its just not going to happen.

However, unlike the “netcast” proposed name change, where things won’t happen because the weight of the world already recognizes and knows the term “podcasts” — “social media” won’t be retired for the exact opposite reason.

Rubel says this:

The problem with all of these balkanized phrases is that they connote that the content created by digitally empowered individuals is somehow bush league. It’s like we’re a separate entity from the rest of the so-called “mainstream” journalists, filmmakers, photographers, etc. who do what we do and get paid more for it. We sit in a special dish like leftover meatloaf so we need a special name. If you use these phrases you’re unintentionally perpetuating that myth.

The real problem is that when you’re so thick in the middle of a topic you have a hard time hearing and seeing what non-early adopters have a hard time grappling with. Sure, I’d love to think that ’social media’ in all its forms has penetrated public consciousness and achieved a certain level of respectability amongst the lay public. But guess what?

It hasn’t.

I’d love to think that the “balkanization” of content isn’t necessary, because I DO believe that bloggers and other social media creators create good (and sometimes great stuff). But I don’t kid myself into thinking that its so mainstream that it isn’t deserving of a label.

Here’s a perfect example.

Ask yourself how “blogging” was covered or described in your favourite mainstream publication or television of choice. Its still treated in introductory terms, and even though there might be a respect for how blogging is changing the [insert industry of choice] landscape, “blogging” is still treated as news in and of itself. Something that has become so pedestrian as to escape the shackles of its own labels and definitions doesn’t get this kind of focus from the mainstream media and treated as “new”.

Or how about this.

There’s a Canadian politician — his name is Garth Turner. He was recently booted out of his party for comments on his blog. When it was happening, it was all over the local media. What was really striking to me was how “blogging” was perceived by the local and national media — as an oddity, and something in the purview of geeks that, sometimes, was deserving of snickering and derision.

That’s right.
When a local radio show was covering how he had left the caucus and was “live” in the House of Commons, they were snickering about how he was live-blogging a particular set of proceedings.

Blogging is one aspect of social media, but in spite of it being probably one of the most prominent elements of it, it still doesn’t get the same regard and respect as other forms of media do. Am I surprised about it? No, because I think its so nascent. What is surprising is Steve Rubel’s assertion that social media has “arrived” — so much so that it isn’t deserving of a special label, because that some how marginalizes the medium.

Well, you know what? The medium is going to get marginalized whether it has a label or not. And I say, perhaps like other groups that have been marginalized in some sort, to wear the labels proudly. Its time to go Paula Abdul, and “make it our own”.

Social Media has arrived, its here to stay. Get used to it.
(repeat while chanting).