Beryl's column this week is all about Bold Fusion, so I thought I'd add my two cents.

I was looking forward to the media panel, which I had understood as focusing on "perceptions of Cincinnati in the media." At the event, however, the discussion was framed more in terms of "How can I get the media to cover my organization or event?"

At one point, somebody asked how he could get the media to not only cover his organization, but to cover it in the way he wanted. This request might have seemed perfectly reasonable to him, but imagine if everyone, from the symphony to the federal government, demanded such consideration! I didn't catch the fellow's name, but he said he was with Lily Pad, so I think he was referring to this Post article about Wi-Fi on the riverfront. (You can find a counterpoint to that article here.)

One question unrelated to press releases was about Cincinnati's relentless focus on local news. The questioner referred to a community of international transplants who want to read about the world. The answer given by Hollis Towns of the Enquirer was pretty much, "Well, that's nice, but we've done tons of research on this and the majority of our readers say they want local news." And the trend is toward even more localized (as in neighborhood) coverage.

It makes sense from a business standpoint. In an age where people can cherry-pick their news from any number of sources, it's possible that the only way for local media outlets to remain relevant is to go local - to the point where you're reading about what's happening on the next block. But I wonder how this trend will affect the public. Will we become savvy media consumers, reading articles from media outlets all over the world? Or will we too become localized - knowing everything about Oakley, for example, but nothing about Greenhills?

OK, I'm done for now. Maybe later I'll say something about Jim Borgman, light rail and/or smoking bans.