White Paper Public Media 2.0: Dynamic Engaged Publics. Have You Read It Yet?

Just wanted to give you the heads up on our new white paper Public Media 2.0: Dynamic Engaged Publics. It continues to be read and embraced by more and more media makers from within the world of public media 2.0. Who are these media makers? You. If you're curious what we mean, we encourage you to check out our new report here.

Wanna get a quick synopsis? Check out this five minute clip on YouTube or this powerpoint on Slideshare.

In addition, you can join the conversation on the 2009 Beyond Broadcast conference social network. Also, New Media Institute's new site Mojoco is hosting our paper. Mojoco is a great example of the potential of public media 2.0 and a perfect forum to engage in conversations on this subject.

This paper was written with the intention to foster discussion and debate. Please take some time to read over it and share your thoughts through one of the avenues mentioned above, your own blog, vlog or other media source.

Here are a few responses so far:

Michael Bauwens from P2P Foundation says, "a very well documented report on participatory public media experiments drawing on hundreds of real-life examples of both public broadcasters and public advocacy organisations"

Executive Vice President of NPR Dennis Haarsager says, "looks like a terrific piece of work."

Josh Wilson from Illuminated Media says, "new AU CSM report, Public Media 2.0, puts its authors, 6 and Pat Aufderhide, among the few scholars actively investigating and advancing new ideas about what public media is, can and should be in the Internet era."

Chuck Tyron Professor of Film and Media Studies at Fayettville State University says, "I'd encourage anyone who is concerned with the role of public media and with creating an engaged, active, participatory public to take a look."

We're also getting some thoughtful critiques. Creativedc twitters, "white paper on public media 2.0 refers to "engaged publics"-hm. i think you pretty much just have the one public."

(Do you agree? Read the paper and then let us know)