@JordanRaynor posted this on his blog and it reminded me of a conversation I had with some colleagues a while back when Bob Stein came and spoke at my university. Bob was talking about the future of the book and naturally the conversation led to discussing how people would/should deal with being overloaded with information and the role of journalists. What place would this changing mediascape have for journalists? Would they be transformed into glorified readers? And would this be a bad thing? I personally don’t think the new mediascape is a threat to journalism – I think it actually makes them more relevant than before. Perhaps the way we teach journalism needs to change, but our world still has a place for trained investigators who seek to uncover the truth and who have skills in how to interview and check facts. The legion of people armed with cell phones aren’t a threat to these individuals, but the institution that surrounds them. The institution doesn’t represent them, but rather is a mere extension. It’s a common misperception, where we come to believe the extension (the institution) is more real than what it extends (the process of journalism). We aren’t witnessing the death of journalism, but the death of the institution of journalism. And to recall the oft heard dictum: in order for it to survive, it has to change.
What’s more, if we’re worried about the quality of information when everyone has a voice (a problem that is progressively being solved by sophisticated online community approval systems), why not start by modifying our pedagogy to help inspire more creative, discerning thinkers? We could start with the journalists. Since they are already being trained to evaluate information, why not reinvent their curriculum to reflect the reality of the information landscape. Some of them could be trained as professional readers (though, one may argue that this is what some bloggers already are). Just a thought.
Below is an interesting discussion about what constitutes “legitimate” journalism.
As I watched my Twitter feed flutter this past weekend with amazing update after amazing update of the Personal Democracy Forum, my former adviser and mentor was there giving what apparently turned out to be a standing-ovation-worthy preso on YouTube Culture and Politics of Authenticity. The fact that he brought the house down with his presentation doesn’t surprise me; he has a unique talent for connecting with his audience and his students. What does surprise me, however, is how he seems to do it better and better each time. I genuinely miss studying under him, but I’m glad I get to keep up with his work through the interwebs. Below is a brief snippet of the end of his talk. If anyone knows of a longer recording, please point the way. And also, in light of the topic, I’ve included some other insightful videos you might find interesting if you like what Wesch has to say.
At the 2008 Media Ecology conference I had the chance to meet the creator of this brilliant video, Eric Goodman. A revealing montage inspired by Neil Postman’s book Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. In addition to thinking of Neil Postman when I watch it, I always think of Marshall McLuhan, “Faced with information overload, we have no alternative but pattern-recognition.”
“Television is our culture’s principal mode of knowing about itself. Therefore — and this is the critical point — how television stages the world becomes the model for how the world is properly to be staged. It is not merely that on the television screen entertainment is the metaphor for all discourse. It is that off the screen the same metaphor prevails.”
“Most of our daily news is inert, consisting of information that gives us something to talk about but cannot lead to any meaningful action.”
“Television screens saturated with commercials promote the utopian and childish idea that all problems have fast, simple, and technological solutions. You must banish from your mind the naive but commonplace notion that commercials are about products. They are about products in the same sense that the story of Jonah is about the anatomy of whales. ” -- Neil Postman Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business
danah boyd tweeted an unedited version of her talk given at the Personal Democracy Forum Conference (#pdf09) entitled “The Not-So-Hidden Politics of Class Online” and I must say, it’s absolutely fabulous. Though her ideas might be controversial, she touches on an important reality I think many tech evangelists are scared to recognize; that class divisions are being reproduced online and that the Internet isn’t the great equalizing utopia we may have hoped for. At the very least it provokes thinking about the social context of technology and the ways in which technologies shape and are shaped by the host culture in which they incubate. The powerful and encompassing forces of technology are undeniable (I think of Edmund Carpenter and his thoughts on the transformative potential of media, “…we may as well stop the ocean.”), but danah reminds us technologies are never neutral and that they are also influenced by (and often mirror) the culture of their users. Below are the ideas from her talk that she wanted to drive home, but I encourage you to read the entire thing. It’s definitely worth it.
1) Social stratification is pervasive in American society (and around the globe). Social media does not magically eradicate inequality. Rather, it mirrors what is happening in everyday life and makes social divisions visible. What we see online is not the property of these specific sites, but the pattern of adoption and development that emerged as people embraced them. People brought their biases with them to these sites and they got baked in.
2) There is no universal public online. What we see as user “choice” in social media often has to do with structural forces like homophily in people’s social networks. Social stratification in this country is not cleanly linked to race or education or socio-economic factors, although all are certainly present. More than anything, social stratification is a social networks issue. People connect to people who think like them and they think like the people with whom they are connected. The digital publics that unfold highlight and reinforce structural divisions.
3) If you are trying to connect with the public, where you go online matters. If you choose to make Facebook your platform for civic activity, you are implicitly suggesting that a specific class of people is more worth your time and attention than others. Of course, splitting your attention can also be costly and doesn’t necessarily mean that you’ll be reaching everyone anyhow. You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. The key to developing a social media strategy is to understand who you’re reaching and who you’re not and make certain that your perspective is accounting for said choices. Understand your biases and work to counter them.
4) The Internet has enabled many new voices to enter the political fray, but not everyone is sitting at the table. There’s a terrible tendency in this country, and especially among politically minded folks, to interpret an advancement as a solution. We have not eradicated racism. We have not eradicated sexism. We have not eradicated inequality. While we’ve made tremendous strides in certain battles, the war is not over. The worst thing we can do is to walk away and congratulate ourselves for all of the good things that have happened. Such attitudes create new breeding grounds for increased stratification.
Human beings are awesome. Flash mob-esque gathering in Vienna, Austria to celebrate Michael Jackson. Thanks @hrheingold for posting this on Smart Mobs.
A couple days ago I blogged about why Bacardi sucks for their “ugly girlfriend” campaign. Well, Burger King has joined ranks with them with their “Super Seven Incher.” Is it terrible that this doesn’t surprise me? Burger King has no taste in their food, nor in their advertising apparently (though this is nothing new; their last few attempts were equally offensive). Below is an image from the promotion being pushed in Singapore. Thanks @intrepidteacher for tweeting this.
Burger King’s (BKC) increasingly obnoxious attempts to lure young dopes to its horrible food may have gone too far this time. Some (likely slightly older) dopes have come up with a print ad shamelessly evoking oral sex to peddle the “BK Super Seven Incher” in Singapore.
Recent Comments