The launch of Media Bullseye has been getting covered. I think that this is a great idea and they've already gotten some excellent voices to contribute.
But, my question about their positioning it as a magazine is who does that redefine?
Magazines are long-lead, long-form publications. They don't often break news but take a deeper look into news and trends that are important at the time. Magazines are becoming more niche as the Internet has allowed people to coalesce around specific interests. The circulations do not have to be as big because the know their audience. But, for the most part, they still follow traditional journalist values.
Bloggers have been defining themselves over the last few years as... well, not journalists. (Aside: When I started my personal blog 4 years ago, blogging was often considered 'citizen journalism.' I made a decision not to go that route and kept a personal journal instead.) Blogs don't follow the inversed pyramid. They want to be accurate but are also willing to let their voice (and opinions) come through. And, of course, they put conversation with their readers at the forefront.
So, what happens when you create a publication staffed with bloggers? Who gets redefined?
Update 12/6: I had a chance to talk with Chip Griffin and Sarah Wurrey at the SNCR Symposium. Chip brought up the interesting point that one of the reasons he started Media Bullseye was to bring traditional PR folks into the online space. By giving them a presentation (and name) that was more familiar to them, he hopes to encourage engagement by audiences not typically reading online content.
So in exploring who might get re-defined by this venture, I missed option C. It's the audience that will be changed through engagement. This would be a noteworthy example of the power of relationships in new media. Definitely worth keeping an eye on.
Links in this post with del.icio.us tag: Bullseye