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.
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!