To echo chamber, or not to echo chamber?

Robert Niles at the Online Journalism Review answers in the affirmative: echo chamber. (And yes, I just made a compound noun into a verb. I'm iconoclastic like that.)

Echo chambers have gotten a bad rap from some in journalism. But partisan media echo chambers can teach responsible journalists important lessons about how to motivate readers and to use the power of repetition to rebuild a newsroom's influence in its community.

We need to use the power of online interactivity to build our own echo chambers, not for partisan spin, but for real reporting. Because without it, traditional news reporting is going to continue to lose readership, and influence, in a hyper-competitive media market.

I like pretty much everything Niles advises here, but I'm not sure that he's using the phrase (yes, now it's back to being a nominative phrase) "echo chamber" correctly. More to the point, he's simply describing Web 2.0 publicity techniques. The goal shouldn't be to make your online echo chamber larger, but to break the chamber's walls and brand yourself and your work. Whether it's via the 1830s penny press or 2008's Internet, the end vision is to get other people to consume your product, not just hear yourself speak (or read yourself type).

If we look to the ways in which the Internet and social media increase interconnectivity, and then leverage that interconnectivity to push journalism onto more platforms and before more eyeballs, then great. But if we use that interconnectivity to produce more and more separate conversations, then we fall into the sort of "Daily Me" trap that Cass Sunstein, among others, warns us about.