There was a small group--around 20--for the Springfield, MA installment of the New England News Forum's Civic News Library Listening Series but it was a crowd that was engaged and knowledgable about media--specifically alternatives to media. Folks like Stevie from freepress.org, Sheila McElwaine and Jeremy Cole from the Springfield Cultural Council, Jeff Potter of the Shelburne Falls Independent, writer/journalist Andrew Varnon (who blogged it), and River Brandon (husband of Urban Compass' Heather Brandon) were in the audience. There was also a reporter for the Republican but he didn't intro himself to any of The Rabble--although some may already have known him....his report ended up being a rather bland "say nice things" type of story.
But that doesn't help us have any kind of debate/meaningful conversation about the issues at hand...
As per usual with panels like this, the crowd knew a heck of a lot more about what is going on with the Internet than the panel. Three of the biggest bugaboos about online interaction--"civility," anonymity, and "too much information"--were brought up by the panel in a sort of "What's all this then!" Inspector Harry "Snapper" Organs/Monty Python kind of way...
It was the anonymity issue that kind of "got" me this time. Pulitzer Prize-winning author Madeleine Blaise brought up the specter of anonymity--and that people should not be anonymous when they are blogging....
The thing is, there are very good and important reasons why Americans choose to blog anonymously....and if journalists can't see, or know this about the society in which we live, then something is very, very wrong with our journalists...
I am always taken by a level of hypocracy people will express when it comes to anonymous U.S.-based blogs. If the anonymous work is from a country where political (and usually press) freedom is non-existent, we Americans believe the anonymous blogs. To those People, Anonymous Blogs are a godsend. Anonymous blogs begin to have more importance than the news reports from those regions (which we know are controlled.) Although, that doesn't mean all those anonymous blogs from all those places are any more or less "real" than anonymous blogs in the U.S.
To their credit, groups like Global Voices Online do an excellent job of filtering anonymous foreign blogs by having a staff of amazing editors who know the countries and the cultures enough, as well as know the world online enough, to be able to tell us that the anonymous blogs are indeed from their countries of origin....
It seems to me that it's journalists--not bloggers nor people who read blogs--who are having the trouble determining the authenticity of anonymous American blogs, and are the ones who want us to be totally transparent at all times.
Doesn't that kind of scream a bit about how out of touch some journalists might be with their own culture? Have some journalists reached a point in their careers where they need guides to culture online in order to understand how the People live within this space--and that in order to participate out here, one might need the cloak of anonymity.
For many private citizens, being anonymous online isn't about the press being free (they're fine with that) or about fear of reprisals from the government (some do, but not everyone)--what appears to be the most prevalent reason that gainfully employed adults will have anonymous/pseudonymous online identities is, in part, fear of reprisals from employers.
Yes, in a rampant capitalist society, where employment is "at will" and where your boss can Google you at any moment to find out what you're up to, just the way he/she might make a quickie legal background check, anonymity for many is paramount if they are going to participate in life online.
And it's not that people are hiding deep-dark secrets or mocking their bosses behind their backs. If you know your employer is conservative, you might not want her knowing you've left a diary or two on Daily Kos--and if you're employer's a "progressive," he might think a bit differently about you after reading your blog about the wonders of modified field rifles.
Still, you might not want your employer, or your neighbors for that matter, reading your profile on Match.com or AdultFriendFinder.com. You might not want them knowing it was you who left that snarky comment about "New Age" psychiatry on the F.A.C.T.net message board, or that you've been secretly writing a novel and asking for input from the denizens of AbsoluteWrite.com.
There are any number of reasons why an adult might want to keep mum about his/her personal life. There are more consequences for adults (as danah boyd once pointed out in a post vis a vis kids online)....
Yet just because there are more and serious consequences to what adults say online, it shouldn't mean that adults shouldn't be online. Many adults want to be online--and want to participate in the varied conversations and wonderful things going on out here, without having to worry about the judgements of neighbors and the potential loss of employment for words uttered that are totally unrelated to their employment....
We know one can get fired for talking anonymously online about one's job (Remember Dooce)--and I'm sure it's only a matter of time before what we say online that's unrelated to our jobs will have some serious consequences. If it hasn't happened already...
I know that when I open my mouth on my personal blog--about *anything* personal--that I am making myself potentially unemployable to someone out here in the Pioneer Valley. That's a cold, hard, fact of having a Google-able life.
If journalists in the United States are having trouble dealing with anonymous blogs, then they need guides--maybe some domestic versions of GVO. But they should not make demands on the people. Journalists must step back from the transparency needs of their professions and understand that for most adults, life in the United States is a complex dance-through-the-minefield of politeness and provincial mores, and that personal expression in any venue can have serious consequences to one's livelihood and social standing. Journalists might want to consider that not all bloggers want to be journalists, and that the "anonymous" may not be unknown to everyone--but only to them.
(a quick thanks to Melinda Casino, who, when I first met her, blogged anonymously at Sour Duck....and who taught me the value of anonymous blogging.)
Journalism, citizen journalism, media, web 2.0, Blog, Blogs
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Monday, May 28, 2007
Hugo Chavez and the Bloodless Murder of Free Speech in Venezuela
Update 5/29/07 BBC News reports that Chaves is moving to shut down another station, Globalvision, for inciting violence against him--and he is also suing CNN for "allegedly linking Mr Chavez to al-Qaeda." Globalvision is probably under attack because it aired footage of protests against the closing of RTC. The protests against Chavez's actions continue.
Coming across the headline Venezuela replaces opposition TV with state network I got very, very worried. And we all should be. Apparently, Hugo Chavez, the democratically elected leader of the people of Venezuela, has shut down Radio Caracas Television (RCTV), the 53-year old network that has been the only voice in opposition to Chavez...
who seems to have forgotten that he got into power from a democratic process and a free press....(or maybe that's exactly what he fears...)
Not everyone thinks Chavez's actions are so grand: 70-80 percent of the people oppose Chavez's unilateral decision to shut down the station.
And I am horrified by the rhetoric coming from the Chavez regime--which cites a lack of "journalistic ethics" as one of the reasons for shutting RCTV down.
Isn't that an easy thing to claim nowadays?
It's not just Chavez's actions, and rhetoric, that horrify me, but also the way our venerable press--the New York Times--has downplayed the incident with the headline Chavez Launches New Venezuelan TV Station
WTF??? Apparently, shutting down the only opposition TV station in Venezuela is nothing more than the launching of a new TV station...makes it sound like Rupert Murdoch just launched an new movie channel or something.
The Times story reads differently (surprise, surprise) and gives very good details regarding what Chavez has done. But the headline minimizes Chavez's decision--and that there has been significant public outcry opposing his decision.
We here in the U.S., and in the blogosphere, should take note of this. We must be ever vigilant to those who want to channel or censor and what we are doing because they are "concerned" about "ethics" out here, and what they view as "echo chambers" out to damage our democracy. Most of the criticism comes from outsiders who know little about how blogging funcitons--the mechanisms of credibility and conversation, which differ from the hidebound "ethical standards" of journalism that may approve of misleading headlines like that in the NYTimes--and cannot host any conversation to discuss or debate how those headlines mislead and minimize a serious consequence to the free speech of a people in a formerly democratic country.
Will some people in Venezuela turn to blogs? Possibly. But there's loads of rhetoric to help Chavez shut down blogs, too. Chavez can simply turn to the rhetoric of American media pundits for justificiation: blogs are "echo chambers" and have no "journalistic ethics." Chavez can also turn to media pundits if he wants to shut down the press in Venezuela--after all, who needs "dead tree media" anymore anyway?? People can simply get the filtered, government approved messages from state run TV or state run online media outlets...which, if Chavez has taken notes on how to manufacture "astroturf" could be easily made to look like the voice of the people...
Oh, Chavez may not have struck at online just yet--but if he's shut down the last oppostion TV station, you can bet that online media (just as much as the printed press) will be the next to go.
And this is how you can make something very, very bad look like it's the best thing in the world to happen to free speech....
RCTV's official reaction to the shutdown:
And this is the demonstration against the shutdown:
Journalism, citizen journalism, media, free speech, Hugo Chavez, RCTV, Web2.0
Coming across the headline Venezuela replaces opposition TV with state network I got very, very worried. And we all should be. Apparently, Hugo Chavez, the democratically elected leader of the people of Venezuela, has shut down Radio Caracas Television (RCTV), the 53-year old network that has been the only voice in opposition to Chavez...
who seems to have forgotten that he got into power from a democratic process and a free press....(or maybe that's exactly what he fears...)
Not everyone thinks Chavez's actions are so grand: 70-80 percent of the people oppose Chavez's unilateral decision to shut down the station.
And I am horrified by the rhetoric coming from the Chavez regime--which cites a lack of "journalistic ethics" as one of the reasons for shutting RCTV down.
Isn't that an easy thing to claim nowadays?
It's not just Chavez's actions, and rhetoric, that horrify me, but also the way our venerable press--the New York Times--has downplayed the incident with the headline Chavez Launches New Venezuelan TV Station
WTF??? Apparently, shutting down the only opposition TV station in Venezuela is nothing more than the launching of a new TV station...makes it sound like Rupert Murdoch just launched an new movie channel or something.
The Times story reads differently (surprise, surprise) and gives very good details regarding what Chavez has done. But the headline minimizes Chavez's decision--and that there has been significant public outcry opposing his decision.
We here in the U.S., and in the blogosphere, should take note of this. We must be ever vigilant to those who want to channel or censor and what we are doing because they are "concerned" about "ethics" out here, and what they view as "echo chambers" out to damage our democracy. Most of the criticism comes from outsiders who know little about how blogging funcitons--the mechanisms of credibility and conversation, which differ from the hidebound "ethical standards" of journalism that may approve of misleading headlines like that in the NYTimes--and cannot host any conversation to discuss or debate how those headlines mislead and minimize a serious consequence to the free speech of a people in a formerly democratic country.
Will some people in Venezuela turn to blogs? Possibly. But there's loads of rhetoric to help Chavez shut down blogs, too. Chavez can simply turn to the rhetoric of American media pundits for justificiation: blogs are "echo chambers" and have no "journalistic ethics." Chavez can also turn to media pundits if he wants to shut down the press in Venezuela--after all, who needs "dead tree media" anymore anyway?? People can simply get the filtered, government approved messages from state run TV or state run online media outlets...which, if Chavez has taken notes on how to manufacture "astroturf" could be easily made to look like the voice of the people...
Oh, Chavez may not have struck at online just yet--but if he's shut down the last oppostion TV station, you can bet that online media (just as much as the printed press) will be the next to go.
And this is how you can make something very, very bad look like it's the best thing in the world to happen to free speech....
RCTV's official reaction to the shutdown:
And this is the demonstration against the shutdown:
Journalism, citizen journalism, media, free speech, Hugo Chavez, RCTV, Web2.0
Friday, May 25, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Knight Foundation Announces Winners of 21st C. News Challenge
Congratulations Lisa Williams! Placeblogger has won one of the Knight 21st Century News Challenge Awards
And here's the list of all this year's winners (which include Amy Gahran, JD Lasica and Jay Rosen)
Congrats everyone!
And here's the list of all this year's winners (which include Amy Gahran, JD Lasica and Jay Rosen)
Congrats everyone!
Friday, May 18, 2007
Notes from the PdF
Friday
It's 4:30 and I've got the usual conference exhaustion....coupled with a slight hang-over I've had all day, and the lack of water (and lack of rest rooms), and you could say I'm feeling a little dehydrated...I've got 15 pages of notes and there's still one more panel to go before the cocktail party...
It's been a full day--with lots of heavy thinking. Hard to do with half a brain...
For the most part, everyone here's had very good things to say. Lawrence Lessig explaining the importance of unmooring videotaped debates from the limitations imposed by networks (yes, debates should be more of a public service vs. a profit-generating show for the networks.) Yet one of the most important things I like about what Lessig is saying is that we should not let Hollywood dictate how democracy should be--and that copyright, something that is important and helpful to hollywood, shouldn't necessarily control how political information gets disseminated (and debates are not just poltical information--but an important part of our political process. Political debates should be free, but Star Wars shouldn't necessarily be free. And, perhaps, there should be some exceptions in the use of video in the case of educational materials....)
Tom Friedman and Eric Schmidt (Google) were next, and it was a bit of a surreal dialogue. Schmidt sounded like he was making google out to be benevolent, but every time I read about them, I'm reading something that isn't all that benevolent. I did, however, and indirectly, learn more about why they purchased YouTube--basically, people respond to video differently than they do to words, or text, on a screen. It seems that by purchasing YouTube, it gives Google a ringside seat for observing the emotional responses of viewers to video...
There was more of a sense that Google is the Big Brother that Orwell *almost* envisioned. Orwell simply forgot about captialism in his worldview...
But back to Tom Friedman--who seems to be embodying the worst traits of the affluent middle aged white male. As he, once again, ad infinitum, told that tired old anecdote about the Paris cab driver wearing the bluetooth headset, and that, disappointedly, he and the cab driver didn't have a conversation on his ride to the hotel, all I could think of was "hmmm...heard this one before..."
That story is nothing more than the parable of a rich man out of touch with people, and making assumptions about the lot of regular people and interaction based on his own limited interaction with one individual in a cab...
I've just heard this one too many times on too many mainstream media programs and can no longer think of it as significant in any way. It's a moment over-exposed..
So then, why is Tom Friedman's one experience such a titual moment and diagnostic of the human condition in the internet? How can he understand anything about the real-life ways in which people are (or aren't) "connected" if there is always this barrier of class and priviledge between himself and the people he encounters? When Tom can speak, as I can, about the experience of a friend or a neighbor has with the internet and technology, I might begin to believe him...
As it is now, Freidman sounds like a man trapped in his profession--separated from people and knowing them only through stats and distant observation.
And if Freidman's point is that we need to learn to filter--and that people's perceptions of the 'net is that what they find on it is more accurate...well, that, too, isn't something I haven't heard before. Those are points of media literacy--something our schools will not teach (no money) and we must learn for ourselves.
In all fairness, Tom does know a great deal about a great deal--but even the most eloquent of speakers, and the most intelligent of individuals, can have blind spots...I believe this is one of Tom's big ole blind spots...
as it is now, I'm more inclined to believe Lee Rainey of the Pew Internet and American Life project, who's conducted some of the best surveys ever on the phenomenon. Lee's a fascinating guy, and the things he unpacks from his bag of tricks never ceases to enlighten even the highest of highbrows....
Note: Combing thru blog reports on PdF, I come across Josh Bernoff at Social Media Today on Friedman: Funny how privacy and reputation are somehow repeated in so many of these presentations. Everyone needs to develop a thick skin and skepticism. The trend of transparency and of online character assassination are two sides of the same coin. Get used to it. While I don't believe Friedman's hypothesis that now "everybody" has a blog(I know quite a few people who don't and never will)and all of us are one step away from being Paris Hilton, Bernoff's right about developing thick skins and skepticism. Otherwise, things may go horribly litigious which will only have a chilling effect.
Sunday: Taking a couple of days off due to catching a small "bug" in NYC, I'm sitting at my desk this dusky cool Sunday evening, going over my notes and reading other blog posts on the PdF. I've hit the page of notes on Yochai Benkler's talk, and remember how Dave Cohn and I kept talking about how are minds were totally blown by Benkler--who was so spot on when he said that "not everyone is a pamphleteer, but we are also not all intellectual lemmings."
Yet every time I listen to danah boyd (more here)I get a little depressed that I was ahead of the curve in social media in one sense, and behind the curve in another. danah mentions in her talk four points of online public spaces-- persistence, serchability (less privacy), replacability, and invisible audiences--I find myself nodding at these as they are things I disccovered from being online for so long (close to 10 years now). And she knows, like so many of us, that public space is disappearing--correction: has been disappearing for many, many years. The internet, for many of us, *is* our public space. True that it is more the experience of teens, but it is for a handful of us adults, too. Getting that thru to political types, as danah knows and has said, is a difficult thing indeed. They just don't seem to be able to *see* the space. If they can't see the space and understand the space, they will never reach young voters. And that's something we can't afford....
The most important thing I got out of the PdF though was that, out of all the conferences I've attended (and if you look at the sidebar, there's a bunch) this was the first group where there was not a whole bunch of demogoguery. Nobody was jumping up and down shouting "Citizen journalists rule!" or promoting any other hyperbolic ingredient in the Web 2.0 user-generated kool-aid. Rather, there was true, reasoned discussion...
Even on the Web 2.0: Cult of the Amateur? A Debate panel with Andrew Keen....
Jeff Jarvis said that he was approached to debate Keen at the PdF, and actually I was glad he didn't take up the offer. Jarvis on that panel might have taken away from a reasoned discussion on the topic--and, given Jeff's penchant for interrupting folks, Keen might not have been able to state why he wrote his particular polemic at this particular time...
But there is more to Keen than even he might have you think...(check this vid)
When Keen mentioned that he had taught Marxism, and that his book was a "subversion of a subversion," I got exactly what he is trying to do with his book. Keen lives in the land of Web 2.0. He's living among the kool-aid sippers, and he's not enjoying the trip. He is, indeed, a contrarian's contrarian--the most curmudgeonly curmudgeon. And my sense, clearly is that he has to be in order to be able to be heard over the happy-happy-joy-joy cacophany of the Silly Valley.
Hell, sombody *has* to do it--and it might as well be one of Their Own--a Berkeley Insider--which is Keen. Would that world listen to anybody else? Probably not.
Clay Shirky, however, provided a fine counterpoint to Keen, pointing out that the negative effects Keen discusses in his book are indeed real. (If we don't want to trust Keen because of his particular level of crankosity, then all we really need to do is read some Shirky--who, on occasion, points out the negatives, too. Albeit perhaps a bit more amusingly...)
Shirky doesn't believe we're looking at the death of our culture (as Keen believes), and that there are positives in this. The negatives, Shirky asserts, will be felt most strongly by those who have benefitted the most from the old system...
Someone, possibly Shirky, mentions Revenue: and massive positive supply-side shock. A
and "talent" online may be limited--but the thing is you don't have to have talent to have a conversation. And lots of blogging is conversation...
Then Craig Newmark--who amusingly pointed out how Keen equated children with livestock (and made everyone just crack up)--reminded all that "The Internet is just beginning. We're evolving the mechanisms." (talked to Craig a tiny bit earlier in the day--hope he's enjoying NYC :-) )
Robert Scoble also brought up how the people act as editors and monitors--and he's very right. Yet I find Scoble's assertion that *anyone* can become bigtime out here just from, say, blogging, isn't telling the entire story. If you really *do* want to do something with your blogging--you've got to find ways to get known (don't I know it...)
Keen finally mentioned how he beleives newspapser should be like utilities--and if they were not accountable to anyone, then they would be very different from the entities they are today (isn't this terribly Marxist of Keen? and isn't this, perhaps, what newspapers should be, rather than profit generating machines?)
Although Keen does sort of shoot himself a bit by claiming "The Internet is a wet dream" to which Rory O'Connor said "what?!?" and (to me) "you better write that one down..." it was an, um, seminal moment? (pardon the pun...)
Other important goings on:
Andrew Rasiej and Micah Sifry announce Tech President--an important initiative to get technology concerns on the table for the next election. Check the blog out here....
And a number of the folks I know from Boston blogging circles were there, including Steve Garfield making whole bunches of videos...and catches me and Andy Carvin and Kenyatta Cheese trying to snap the ever-moving Jarvis...
Halley Suitt (whose blog is, sadly, now readable by invitation only)
Andy Carvin (who's got a Tech President post with audio) who isn't in Boston any more, but that's how and where I know him...
and Aldon Hynes who's actually Connecticut, and was attending his *fourth* PdF! who introduced me to the very cool Ruby Sinreich whom I hope to get to correspond/talk with again...
Also ran into Mary Hodder who I hadn't seen in an age, and would really love to be able to catch up with....she's writing fantastic stuff these days...
JD Lasica who's always fun to bump into at cons...(and I've been bumping into him since my first con--BlogHer--back in '05)
Liza Sabater who I will one day have more than a five-minute chat with....
as well as Bob Cox who was there taking pics with a new Nokia...looking forward to them on Bob's Bob's Flickr photo album. Bob says "every time I see you, you're talking to somebody! you're like my 5 year old, you never seem to shut up..." yeah, that's true....if it wasn't for the social aspect of conferences, I might not go ;-)
and Jay Rosen, who finally found me when I was talking with Bob in the cortyard, I thought knew I was going to PdF on a press pass, but I guess I forgot to tell him... oops!
and finally Loren Feldman who does the kind of ragey rants I wish I could do...but, sadly, being a woman (and a middle-aged woman at that) I am verboten to perform... glad at least somebody can...and in such mellifluous Brooklyneese....
PDF2007,
citizen journalism,Journalism, media, Web 2.0, Blogs,
It's 4:30 and I've got the usual conference exhaustion....coupled with a slight hang-over I've had all day, and the lack of water (and lack of rest rooms), and you could say I'm feeling a little dehydrated...I've got 15 pages of notes and there's still one more panel to go before the cocktail party...
It's been a full day--with lots of heavy thinking. Hard to do with half a brain...
For the most part, everyone here's had very good things to say. Lawrence Lessig explaining the importance of unmooring videotaped debates from the limitations imposed by networks (yes, debates should be more of a public service vs. a profit-generating show for the networks.) Yet one of the most important things I like about what Lessig is saying is that we should not let Hollywood dictate how democracy should be--and that copyright, something that is important and helpful to hollywood, shouldn't necessarily control how political information gets disseminated (and debates are not just poltical information--but an important part of our political process. Political debates should be free, but Star Wars shouldn't necessarily be free. And, perhaps, there should be some exceptions in the use of video in the case of educational materials....)
Tom Friedman and Eric Schmidt (Google) were next, and it was a bit of a surreal dialogue. Schmidt sounded like he was making google out to be benevolent, but every time I read about them, I'm reading something that isn't all that benevolent. I did, however, and indirectly, learn more about why they purchased YouTube--basically, people respond to video differently than they do to words, or text, on a screen. It seems that by purchasing YouTube, it gives Google a ringside seat for observing the emotional responses of viewers to video...
There was more of a sense that Google is the Big Brother that Orwell *almost* envisioned. Orwell simply forgot about captialism in his worldview...
But back to Tom Friedman--who seems to be embodying the worst traits of the affluent middle aged white male. As he, once again, ad infinitum, told that tired old anecdote about the Paris cab driver wearing the bluetooth headset, and that, disappointedly, he and the cab driver didn't have a conversation on his ride to the hotel, all I could think of was "hmmm...heard this one before..."
That story is nothing more than the parable of a rich man out of touch with people, and making assumptions about the lot of regular people and interaction based on his own limited interaction with one individual in a cab...
I've just heard this one too many times on too many mainstream media programs and can no longer think of it as significant in any way. It's a moment over-exposed..
So then, why is Tom Friedman's one experience such a titual moment and diagnostic of the human condition in the internet? How can he understand anything about the real-life ways in which people are (or aren't) "connected" if there is always this barrier of class and priviledge between himself and the people he encounters? When Tom can speak, as I can, about the experience of a friend or a neighbor has with the internet and technology, I might begin to believe him...
As it is now, Freidman sounds like a man trapped in his profession--separated from people and knowing them only through stats and distant observation.
And if Freidman's point is that we need to learn to filter--and that people's perceptions of the 'net is that what they find on it is more accurate...well, that, too, isn't something I haven't heard before. Those are points of media literacy--something our schools will not teach (no money) and we must learn for ourselves.
In all fairness, Tom does know a great deal about a great deal--but even the most eloquent of speakers, and the most intelligent of individuals, can have blind spots...I believe this is one of Tom's big ole blind spots...
as it is now, I'm more inclined to believe Lee Rainey of the Pew Internet and American Life project, who's conducted some of the best surveys ever on the phenomenon. Lee's a fascinating guy, and the things he unpacks from his bag of tricks never ceases to enlighten even the highest of highbrows....
Note: Combing thru blog reports on PdF, I come across Josh Bernoff at Social Media Today on Friedman: Funny how privacy and reputation are somehow repeated in so many of these presentations. Everyone needs to develop a thick skin and skepticism. The trend of transparency and of online character assassination are two sides of the same coin. Get used to it. While I don't believe Friedman's hypothesis that now "everybody" has a blog(I know quite a few people who don't and never will)and all of us are one step away from being Paris Hilton, Bernoff's right about developing thick skins and skepticism. Otherwise, things may go horribly litigious which will only have a chilling effect.
Sunday: Taking a couple of days off due to catching a small "bug" in NYC, I'm sitting at my desk this dusky cool Sunday evening, going over my notes and reading other blog posts on the PdF. I've hit the page of notes on Yochai Benkler's talk, and remember how Dave Cohn and I kept talking about how are minds were totally blown by Benkler--who was so spot on when he said that "not everyone is a pamphleteer, but we are also not all intellectual lemmings."
Yet every time I listen to danah boyd (more here)I get a little depressed that I was ahead of the curve in social media in one sense, and behind the curve in another. danah mentions in her talk four points of online public spaces-- persistence, serchability (less privacy), replacability, and invisible audiences--I find myself nodding at these as they are things I disccovered from being online for so long (close to 10 years now). And she knows, like so many of us, that public space is disappearing--correction: has been disappearing for many, many years. The internet, for many of us, *is* our public space. True that it is more the experience of teens, but it is for a handful of us adults, too. Getting that thru to political types, as danah knows and has said, is a difficult thing indeed. They just don't seem to be able to *see* the space. If they can't see the space and understand the space, they will never reach young voters. And that's something we can't afford....
The most important thing I got out of the PdF though was that, out of all the conferences I've attended (and if you look at the sidebar, there's a bunch) this was the first group where there was not a whole bunch of demogoguery. Nobody was jumping up and down shouting "Citizen journalists rule!" or promoting any other hyperbolic ingredient in the Web 2.0 user-generated kool-aid. Rather, there was true, reasoned discussion...
Even on the Web 2.0: Cult of the Amateur? A Debate panel with Andrew Keen....
Jeff Jarvis said that he was approached to debate Keen at the PdF, and actually I was glad he didn't take up the offer. Jarvis on that panel might have taken away from a reasoned discussion on the topic--and, given Jeff's penchant for interrupting folks, Keen might not have been able to state why he wrote his particular polemic at this particular time...
But there is more to Keen than even he might have you think...(check this vid)
When Keen mentioned that he had taught Marxism, and that his book was a "subversion of a subversion," I got exactly what he is trying to do with his book. Keen lives in the land of Web 2.0. He's living among the kool-aid sippers, and he's not enjoying the trip. He is, indeed, a contrarian's contrarian--the most curmudgeonly curmudgeon. And my sense, clearly is that he has to be in order to be able to be heard over the happy-happy-joy-joy cacophany of the Silly Valley.
Hell, sombody *has* to do it--and it might as well be one of Their Own--a Berkeley Insider--which is Keen. Would that world listen to anybody else? Probably not.
Clay Shirky, however, provided a fine counterpoint to Keen, pointing out that the negative effects Keen discusses in his book are indeed real. (If we don't want to trust Keen because of his particular level of crankosity, then all we really need to do is read some Shirky--who, on occasion, points out the negatives, too. Albeit perhaps a bit more amusingly...)
Shirky doesn't believe we're looking at the death of our culture (as Keen believes), and that there are positives in this. The negatives, Shirky asserts, will be felt most strongly by those who have benefitted the most from the old system...
Someone, possibly Shirky, mentions Revenue: and massive positive supply-side shock. A
and "talent" online may be limited--but the thing is you don't have to have talent to have a conversation. And lots of blogging is conversation...
Then Craig Newmark--who amusingly pointed out how Keen equated children with livestock (and made everyone just crack up)--reminded all that "The Internet is just beginning. We're evolving the mechanisms." (talked to Craig a tiny bit earlier in the day--hope he's enjoying NYC :-) )
Robert Scoble also brought up how the people act as editors and monitors--and he's very right. Yet I find Scoble's assertion that *anyone* can become bigtime out here just from, say, blogging, isn't telling the entire story. If you really *do* want to do something with your blogging--you've got to find ways to get known (don't I know it...)
Keen finally mentioned how he beleives newspapser should be like utilities--and if they were not accountable to anyone, then they would be very different from the entities they are today (isn't this terribly Marxist of Keen? and isn't this, perhaps, what newspapers should be, rather than profit generating machines?)
Although Keen does sort of shoot himself a bit by claiming "The Internet is a wet dream" to which Rory O'Connor said "what?!?" and (to me) "you better write that one down..." it was an, um, seminal moment? (pardon the pun...)
Other important goings on:
Andrew Rasiej and Micah Sifry announce Tech President--an important initiative to get technology concerns on the table for the next election. Check the blog out here....
And a number of the folks I know from Boston blogging circles were there, including Steve Garfield making whole bunches of videos...and catches me and Andy Carvin and Kenyatta Cheese trying to snap the ever-moving Jarvis...
Halley Suitt (whose blog is, sadly, now readable by invitation only)
Andy Carvin (who's got a Tech President post with audio) who isn't in Boston any more, but that's how and where I know him...
and Aldon Hynes who's actually Connecticut, and was attending his *fourth* PdF! who introduced me to the very cool Ruby Sinreich whom I hope to get to correspond/talk with again...
Also ran into Mary Hodder who I hadn't seen in an age, and would really love to be able to catch up with....she's writing fantastic stuff these days...
JD Lasica who's always fun to bump into at cons...(and I've been bumping into him since my first con--BlogHer--back in '05)
Liza Sabater who I will one day have more than a five-minute chat with....
as well as Bob Cox who was there taking pics with a new Nokia...looking forward to them on Bob's Bob's Flickr photo album. Bob says "every time I see you, you're talking to somebody! you're like my 5 year old, you never seem to shut up..." yeah, that's true....if it wasn't for the social aspect of conferences, I might not go ;-)
and Jay Rosen, who finally found me when I was talking with Bob in the cortyard, I thought knew I was going to PdF on a press pass, but I guess I forgot to tell him... oops!
and finally Loren Feldman who does the kind of ragey rants I wish I could do...but, sadly, being a woman (and a middle-aged woman at that) I am verboten to perform... glad at least somebody can...and in such mellifluous Brooklyneese....
PDF2007,
citizen journalism,Journalism, media, Web 2.0, Blogs,
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Cool NewMedia Happenings 5/17/07
OhMyNews on Wikimu citizen journalism in Indonesia.......Newsdesk.org's new design and more NYMHM...Ourmedia celebrates two years...NowPublic and YouTube?!?.....A new guy at Associated Content...
OhMyNews profiles Adrianto Gani, the CEO of Wikimu.com and discusses citizen journalism in Indonesia:
I'm fascinated on how various countries deal with "citizen journalism." In countries where the polticial situation is more hot-button than it is here (well, it is here too, but we ignore it), the press has an extremely important role and the cultivation of citizen journalists is important. Over here, we have it way too easy, and our "citizen journalism" is slowly being co-opted by the mainstream. Look at all the networks that want *your* video content--why? as well as many of the major newspapers wanting to "host"--as in direct, co-opt, gatekeep--citizen journalism.
Over here, it's all about Celebrity--if the networks can bestow it on you and how you can keep it. In places like Indonesia, it's about freedom of speech and information.
and speaking of independent, citizen-powered sites in the U.S.:
Newsdesk.org spiffs up their site, as well as their "News You Might Have Missed"--which y'all can also subscribe to. Josh and his team dig up some great stories--definitley stuff that you would certainly have missed otherwise...
Non-profit, non-coroporate citizen media site Ourmedia recently celebrated its two-year anniversary with a new streamlined look. Cool things about Ourmedia: tons of interviews with all sorts of movers and shakers on the inside of the "web 2.0" movement (geeze! I hate that term!) as well as great information resources (how tos on doing it right and not getting screwed by "the law"--hmmm...maybe the YouTube guys need a lesson there ;-) ). (via D.G.'s blog)
but wait! there's more...
NowPublic's new deal with YouTube makes it easier for citizens to get hold of other citizen's (or their own) video and post to stories they do at NowPublic. As Mike sez in an email: "It's crowd-sourcing for all." Exactly!
Associated Content's hired Tim Skillern, former multimedia producer-reporting type guy at RockyMountainNews.com, to be its new News Director. From the AC p/r guys:
Journalism, citizen journalism, media,web 2.0, Blog, Blogs
OhMyNews profiles Adrianto Gani, the CEO of Wikimu.com and discusses citizen journalism in Indonesia:
Q: Being independent and open to any point of view, how would you prevent your site from being used for political or religious campaigns?
A: Editors can always interfere, if needed, to decide if an article needs to be modified or even rejected before being posted in wikimu.
I'm fascinated on how various countries deal with "citizen journalism." In countries where the polticial situation is more hot-button than it is here (well, it is here too, but we ignore it), the press has an extremely important role and the cultivation of citizen journalists is important. Over here, we have it way too easy, and our "citizen journalism" is slowly being co-opted by the mainstream. Look at all the networks that want *your* video content--why? as well as many of the major newspapers wanting to "host"--as in direct, co-opt, gatekeep--citizen journalism.
Over here, it's all about Celebrity--if the networks can bestow it on you and how you can keep it. In places like Indonesia, it's about freedom of speech and information.
and speaking of independent, citizen-powered sites in the U.S.:
Newsdesk.org spiffs up their site, as well as their "News You Might Have Missed"--which y'all can also subscribe to. Josh and his team dig up some great stories--definitley stuff that you would certainly have missed otherwise...
Non-profit, non-coroporate citizen media site Ourmedia recently celebrated its two-year anniversary with a new streamlined look. Cool things about Ourmedia: tons of interviews with all sorts of movers and shakers on the inside of the "web 2.0" movement (geeze! I hate that term!) as well as great information resources (how tos on doing it right and not getting screwed by "the law"--hmmm...maybe the YouTube guys need a lesson there ;-) ). (via D.G.'s blog)
but wait! there's more...
NowPublic's new deal with YouTube makes it easier for citizens to get hold of other citizen's (or their own) video and post to stories they do at NowPublic. As Mike sez in an email: "It's crowd-sourcing for all." Exactly!
Associated Content's hired Tim Skillern, former multimedia producer-reporting type guy at RockyMountainNews.com, to be its new News Director. From the AC p/r guys:
Skillern will be responsible for developing and managing the news library, editing news submissions, supervising support staff and managing the syndication of assets. He will also manage the site’s Content Producers, organizing teams to respond to breaking news stories, as well as reaching out to invite contributions from new users.Pretty much sums it up. Sounds like a fun job--and where can I get one kinda like it??? ;-)
Journalism, citizen journalism, media,web 2.0, Blog, Blogs
Monday, May 07, 2007
Stop! Look! Links! 5/7/07
Save Pandora....Citizen Journalism hype: the view from Australia. . .Ziff-Davis' ethical gaffe...Jack Myers on ethical lapses with the VA Tech story...new independent hyperlocal citizen journalism in Buffalo,NY...Where is social media going?
Sorry I've been remiss with posting here. Lots going on at Assignment Zero and I've barely had a chance to breathe. However, there's been a number of stories y'all should take a look at:
Tim Westergren of Pandora recently sent an email urging action on recent regulations boosting fees for Internet radio. from Tim: Understand that we are fully supportive of paying royalties to the artists whose music we play, and have done so since our inception. As a former touring musician myself, I'm no stranger to the challenges facing working musicians. The issue we have with the recent ruling is that it puts the cost of streaming far out of the range of ANY webcaster's business potential. Sign the petition to Save Internet Radio. . .
Check out Buffalo Rising a new hyperlocal site for Buffalo, NY! I love when people go and do things without the permission of the local newspaper magnates! BR's got its own reporting, PLUS it's aggregating local blogs, PLUS an ad from the local minor league team! Best of luck to George Johnson and everybody at BR :-)
(if I had the time and $$ to do it, I'd set up something like this out here in W. Mass...)
DIY journalism is not a real alternative: Christopher Scanlon writes a how the rhetoric around the term "citizen journalism" is being used in Australia: The ease with which a blog or a news site can be set up fuels the myth that citizen journalism is free of constraints. However, the most popular sites aren't owned and controlled by altruistic charities intent on spreading free speech. They're controlled by entities that are driven by profit.... In most cases, and esp. as far as the big media-style blogs are concerned, he's right. The smaller, hyperlocal ones, however, are a different story. I wonder what the hyperlocal scene is in Australia?
Fellow blogger Paul Conley's been following Ziff-Davis' use of IntelliTXT ads in their news copy and ZD journos have informed Paul of ZD's recent malfeasance Paul says: Look. I have nothing against advertising. But this is not a negotiable issue. The ethical standards of our industry are as clear as can be in this area. The editorial department controls editorial. It's that simple. Here, in fact, is what ASBPE says: "Whether for editorial or advertising information, hypertext links should be placed at the discretion and approval of editors. Also, advertising and sponsored links should be clearly distinguishable from editorial, and labeled as such ... Contextual links within editorial content should not be sold, and generally should not link to a vendor’s Web site, unless it is pertinent to the editorial content or helpful to the reader."
There may be a place for ads such as these, but that place cannot be in any publication that claims to adhere to the standards of professional journalism. I so completely agree with Paul...this kind of thing is nonsense. Hyperlinks in text should lead to further information, as in related stories, and not to ads. This really is just bloody awful...
NBC Should Never Have Aired the Virginia Tech Video: Jack Myers’ Think Tank former CBS tv exec Jack Myers writes the best column at MediaPost TVBoard blog--Jack's look at lots of the decisions that networks are making these days and is unflinching in his criticism of the ethical gaffes msm is making these names all in the name of money. from Jack: There are endless arguments about free speech, about how the videos would have found their way into the public eye — and, of course, NBC’s responsibility not only to the audience but to shareholders as well, for whom any ratings opportunity is more important than issues of the public good. Jack's got a good point....and also understands that when these sorts of things show up on YouTube, it's a very different thing than when they show up on something like the NBC Nightly News--partly because of the money involved but also because of the ethical implications. I can't do Jack justice here...go read the whole post...
Vincent Maher's Where is Social Media going? is an unflinching look at the downside of social media: The social media world is highly fragmented, in terms of both content and format, and also tends to be filtered around clusters of special interests or communities. For instance, the collective intelligence that emerges on sites like Digg and Reddit ultimately recreates the considered decisions made by editors but the process is very different and, ultimately, harder to fix.
If an editor begins to display a consistent bias that negatively affects the publication, the editor can be fired and replaced, quickly. On the other hand, the wide-spread ideological bias of the readership of a site like Digg (and perhaps the influence of an elite of power users) is much harder to eradicate. Anybody who thought the Digg riot was a good thing should read Maher. Social media sites are great when the emphasis is on "social"--but when "media" dominates "social" in the word-equation (and in the thinking of those who want to boost their profit margins), we've got problems.
That's the best of the bunch from my Inbox! more later...
Journalism, citizen journalism, media, Blogging, Blog, Blogs, Web2.0
Sorry I've been remiss with posting here. Lots going on at Assignment Zero and I've barely had a chance to breathe. However, there's been a number of stories y'all should take a look at:
Tim Westergren of Pandora recently sent an email urging action on recent regulations boosting fees for Internet radio. from Tim: Understand that we are fully supportive of paying royalties to the artists whose music we play, and have done so since our inception. As a former touring musician myself, I'm no stranger to the challenges facing working musicians. The issue we have with the recent ruling is that it puts the cost of streaming far out of the range of ANY webcaster's business potential. Sign the petition to Save Internet Radio. . .
Check out Buffalo Rising a new hyperlocal site for Buffalo, NY! I love when people go and do things without the permission of the local newspaper magnates! BR's got its own reporting, PLUS it's aggregating local blogs, PLUS an ad from the local minor league team! Best of luck to George Johnson and everybody at BR :-)
(if I had the time and $$ to do it, I'd set up something like this out here in W. Mass...)
DIY journalism is not a real alternative: Christopher Scanlon writes a how the rhetoric around the term "citizen journalism" is being used in Australia: The ease with which a blog or a news site can be set up fuels the myth that citizen journalism is free of constraints. However, the most popular sites aren't owned and controlled by altruistic charities intent on spreading free speech. They're controlled by entities that are driven by profit.... In most cases, and esp. as far as the big media-style blogs are concerned, he's right. The smaller, hyperlocal ones, however, are a different story. I wonder what the hyperlocal scene is in Australia?
Fellow blogger Paul Conley's been following Ziff-Davis' use of IntelliTXT ads in their news copy and ZD journos have informed Paul of ZD's recent malfeasance Paul says: Look. I have nothing against advertising. But this is not a negotiable issue. The ethical standards of our industry are as clear as can be in this area. The editorial department controls editorial. It's that simple. Here, in fact, is what ASBPE says: "Whether for editorial or advertising information, hypertext links should be placed at the discretion and approval of editors. Also, advertising and sponsored links should be clearly distinguishable from editorial, and labeled as such ... Contextual links within editorial content should not be sold, and generally should not link to a vendor’s Web site, unless it is pertinent to the editorial content or helpful to the reader."
There may be a place for ads such as these, but that place cannot be in any publication that claims to adhere to the standards of professional journalism. I so completely agree with Paul...this kind of thing is nonsense. Hyperlinks in text should lead to further information, as in related stories, and not to ads. This really is just bloody awful...
NBC Should Never Have Aired the Virginia Tech Video: Jack Myers’ Think Tank former CBS tv exec Jack Myers writes the best column at MediaPost TVBoard blog--Jack's look at lots of the decisions that networks are making these days and is unflinching in his criticism of the ethical gaffes msm is making these names all in the name of money. from Jack: There are endless arguments about free speech, about how the videos would have found their way into the public eye — and, of course, NBC’s responsibility not only to the audience but to shareholders as well, for whom any ratings opportunity is more important than issues of the public good. Jack's got a good point....and also understands that when these sorts of things show up on YouTube, it's a very different thing than when they show up on something like the NBC Nightly News--partly because of the money involved but also because of the ethical implications. I can't do Jack justice here...go read the whole post...
Vincent Maher's Where is Social Media going? is an unflinching look at the downside of social media: The social media world is highly fragmented, in terms of both content and format, and also tends to be filtered around clusters of special interests or communities. For instance, the collective intelligence that emerges on sites like Digg and Reddit ultimately recreates the considered decisions made by editors but the process is very different and, ultimately, harder to fix.
If an editor begins to display a consistent bias that negatively affects the publication, the editor can be fired and replaced, quickly. On the other hand, the wide-spread ideological bias of the readership of a site like Digg (and perhaps the influence of an elite of power users) is much harder to eradicate. Anybody who thought the Digg riot was a good thing should read Maher. Social media sites are great when the emphasis is on "social"--but when "media" dominates "social" in the word-equation (and in the thinking of those who want to boost their profit margins), we've got problems.
That's the best of the bunch from my Inbox! more later...
Journalism, citizen journalism, media, Blogging, Blog, Blogs, Web2.0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)