It is interesting that even today – after much discourse over ‘new media’ – there is an understated inconsistency (and error) in the way we use the term ‘new media’.

The fundamental flaw? Mention ‘new media’ and many would immediately think of Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, Interactive TV, Games, Video-sharing sites, RSS and the likes. This is a deceptively close-to-accurate perception, but therein lies a completely flawed paradigm that would hinder our understanding and limit our effectiveness as PR professionals in this very ‘new media’.

The problem? Defining ‘new media’ as entity, instead of environment.

The result? Skewed thinking that steers one’s creativity to doing the same thing (‘sending messages’), only through new (media) channels or in marginally new ways.

New media is not entity. It is environment. It is ‘traditional media’ made new.

We should not see ‘new media’ as mere entities, and separate from ‘traditional media’, but rather, a whole new ‘environment’, in which we each play many parts – newsmaker, storyteller, facilitator, jury and judge.

And we should not see ‘traditional media’ as distinctive channels of communications, but realise that Media, in its entirety, has evolved with the advent of Web 2.0 technologies into something intrinsically different.

The right paradigm frees us from developing PR strategies that relegate our ‘target audience’ to merely passive recipients. Instead, it prompts us to think about how we can make them an active part of that ongoing conversation between Company and Customer.

Below are two slides to help illustrate the difference between the right and wrong way to define ‘new media’. The lack of detail and artistry in these slides do no justice to the importance of this topic, but nonetheless, interest of time prevails; and as always, I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.