What I’ve been able to observe with Murmurs, since it started in the mid 90s, is the difference in fidelity between the general and the specialist. General news coverage, you might say, knows less, whilst specialist coverage basks in a much higher definition because the reporter (and, here, the reader) know - and care - much more. It’s the adage about the realisation that hits online reporters sooner or later - the reader knows more than you.

Not to come over all Nicholas Negroponte, but, with Murmurs, I suppose we are able to leverage the power of the network - to create stories of intense value to those who care most and know most. As a news editor, I scan the press, wires and other media for R.E.M. news, I check official sources and write stories off my own back; I think I have a pretty good idea of what may come up and when, and when we should be running what.

But a huge amount of the coverage run comes from the readers, the fans themselves. Effectively, a giant forum system fronted by a front-page news feed, Murmurs’ news operation sits atop a story submission area to which members are invited to post any tidbits they may come across related to the band. Submissions are checked out for their viability in making an endorsed news story and - after editing and such like - successful submissions are elevated to story status.

This works remarkably well. The value of having 15,000 pairs of eyes around the world cannot be underestimated. We would miss out on so much if they weren’t there. It’s like having our own global army of R.E.M. reporters, all scanning their own media for mentions, all reporting on upcoming appearances and such like and, right now, all reporting back with gig reviews, photos, setlists, video and quotes.

It’s this last point which makes me so proud. Because Murmurs has been gleaning some big-league media mentions of late.

First, the NME was, well, inspired by our report of R.E.M.’s first post-election gig in New York for its own front-page third lead, re-quoting our members’ reports from the gig and their own quotes of Michael Stipe’s on-stage banter.

Second, today’s Independent On Sunday also took its lead from the same report and, one gets the impression, quoted the material back at band member Mike Mills in the form of an interview question, propogating the topic still further. Consider that the first reports from the gig in question came into Murmurs within a couple of hours of its finish.

In the same time-bending context, consider that, when Canada’s newspapers last week published pre-concert publicity interviews with the band on their websites at the midnight tick-over, those stories were already the subject of lively discussion on Murmurs hours before Canadians had even woken up, let alone bought their morning paper.

So it just sometimes fills me pride and excitement that the network, the reader and myself are consensually playing a part in creating something of such high definition that, a few years ago, would have been a marvel.

It’s interesting to view the four-year-old news in its modern context. The coverage at the time was full of bubble hubris about AOL/TW’s huge potential as a multi-media behemoth.

The move would create a worldwide market leader capable, in theory, of the most heinous abuses of communication power; it would, as I wrote, usher in fabulous new vertically-integrated cross-promotion opportunities; and it would change the way we think about the internet forever.

Things haven’t quite panned out that way, of course. Thanks to a combination of management culture-clash and large-scale professional over-optimism, those claims are now made to look wildly unfulfilled.

I wonder if, in another few years, we will be saying the same about today’s bubble?