Democracy in Media

Closed Media Dinosaurs and Pseudo Citizen’s Media

I was reading a couple of blog entries by Jeff Jarvis today (1,2).  Jeff has been spending a lot of time discussing some of the recent forays of "citizen's media" into legacy closed distribution networks.  While I do believe these efforts are a positive thing for citizen's media (they generate awareness), they are not really citizen’s media. My response to Jeff’s first post:

“The bleeding of citizen's media efforts into closed network environments is an interesting phenomenon. It strikes me as a rather desperate attempt by the "dinosaurs" (as you put it Jeff) to keep pace with emerging trends. But once it’s broadcast on a closed network (TV, radio, or newspaper) it no longer becomes citizen’s media, it’s just MSM (and grainy MSM at that).

The fundamental problem with these efforts will always be that they are taking an inherently closed distribution mechanism and trying to push open content through it (CurrentTV, YOURradio, Adam’s Sirius show are all guilty of this.). It’s like trying to take the vocal opinions of a thousand people and cramming it into a few short sentences. Unless the crowd is as homogenous as a Bush town hall meeting, you’ve probably missed a lot of what was said. You still wind up with a very small number of people publishing through the channel. The only real difference to the audience is that a different guy is speaking. But there is still no sense of community, no sense of group participation, no sense of conversation. It's still a small group of people deciding what gets aired and what doesn’t; it's just different people making the decision. Is this really citizen’s media?

I thought the point of citizen’s media was not to put the most popular citizens up on a pedestal to represent us all, but rather to invite everyone to the conversation to let them express their own POV. The distinction between citizen journalists and MSM is not found in the individual (even MSM journalists can be citizen journalists, right Jeff?); it’s found in how groups of individuals participate in the discussion. The point is that everyone is free to publish what they want and everyone is free to consume what they want. 

The real story in exploding TV journalism will be when news is comprised of content produced by everybody, filtered by everybody, and consumed by anyone. But maybe I’m missing the point.”

I’ve written a couple posts about this topic (1,2). It just seems very clear to me that whoever appears on a traditional closed network (whether they blog in their slippers on the weekends, podcast from their bedroom every Thursday, or vlog videos of construction in their neighborhood) is just another MSM guy when he appears on an MSM network (at least during the appearance). Otherwise, what really distinguishes citizen’s media from mass media? Is it the nice shoes, the expensive cameras, or the employment contract with MSNBC?

Tags: jarvis, msm, citizensmedia

Al-Jazeera = Democracy in Media?

Al-Jazeera gets a lot of crap. (I think most of this crap is pretty undeserved, but hey, they’re clearly and unflinchingly Arab nationalist.)  Fox News also gets a lot of crap. (I tend to think much of this crap is deserved, but that’s just me.) But while each of these news sources has their vociferous detractors, each also has a loyal following of millions of consumers. I was having a discussion with my business partner a few weeks ago and I was lamenting that independent news sources were a dying breed and that, with the emergence of Fox News, each outlet appeared to be withdrawing into their respective political corners. I felt that this was somewhat dangerous as it tended to give viewers of this content a somewhat skewed version of reality. I mean, it is news, right? Isn’t it supposed to be a reporting of the facts, raw and unbiased in all their factual selves?

But Jason (my business partner) brought up a good point. Relatively neutral sources of news do still exist. The News Hour with Jim Lehr, for example. Jim seems to stay pretty focused on the events at hand without injecting personal opinion. Sure they have moderated discussions, but I would be hard pressed to find someone who felt these discussions somehow favored one point-of-view over the other. I mean, I think these guys recuse themselves from elections to maintain neutrality, for chrissake. Can you see Sean Hannity refusing to vote for Bush because it might make him appear biased?

Anyway, the point is that while these neutral news sources exist, people just aren’t really watching them like they used to. As Jason put it, “they’re voting with their feet.” News Hour just isn’t as exciting as Fox News. People seem to want to hear other people’s opinions about current events mixed in with the reporting of those events (screw waiting for Crossfire, just give me the bottom line). Maybe this helps viewers form stronger opinions. Maybe coming to these conclusions alone is too difficult. Maybe people just like to hear other from people who think like them, spoon feeding them the world with a utensil they’re comfortable with. Who knows… but the bottom line is, people like this stuff, and they’re watching it more than poor old Jim.

This continued to bother me until I began to look at things a little differently. Choice is one of the most fundamental characteristics of citizen’s media. One of the primary goals of citizen’s media is to give everyone a voice to go along with those ears. It is impossible to rail against the monolithic dictatorship that exists in today’s media market, and at the same time fight for a “neutral” monolithic source for information on current events.

The fact remains, myriad perspectives on any given topic may not yield to a consensus, but it will create a lively discussion and everyone will be more informed as a result. We’d need to provide a stage for every perspective, no matter how crazy or divorced from reality. We need to invite every person to participate, no matter how unorthodox their opinions. Let the marketplace decide which perspective is valuable and which is destructive. But most importantly, give every voice a microphone.

Now, this will indeed result in the further fracturing of society into micro communities. It will harden some people’s opinion and cause others to fully retreat into their own little reality (whether it is actually real or not.) But this process has always occurred in society. People have always gravitated towards those with similar perspectives and ideas. This existing predilection will just become fully expressed as the people actually begin to contribute to the discussion. Over time, these communities (unbound by location) will either grow or die based upon the strength of their beliefs (as with all cultural memes). What is important is that there are no limits to what can be expressed, no ideas too crazy to reach an audience, no opinion too extreme to yield a loyal following.

In the marketplace of ideas, two-way communication is essential and freedom of expression paramount. Let the war of ideas really commence; I’m confident that we’ll emerge from the other end with a more robust understanding of events and their impact on our society than at any other point in our short history.

Wading in...

Well, I’ve been lurking around numerous blogs over the past several weeks looking for my voice.  I finally settled on Typepad as my microphone and I'm clearing my throat. 

First of all, the changes taking place in the media and entertainment industries are absolutely amazing, and important.  This industry largely shapes the way in which people look at the world.  Not all people, mind you, but most people.  As a result, we all have an obligation to take more than a passing interest in how this industry operates and evolves.  I think the health and wealth of our democracy and our society depends upon it. (Deep, I know, and not entirely related to this post)

One trend that has struck me as most significant is the blurring of the lines between consumer and producer.  This has become most evident in the blog community as tools like Typepad have made producing content almost as easy as consuming content.  The results are startling; it appears that millions of consumers want to also be producers.  I would expect this trend to continue and branch into other forms of media.  (Podcasting appears to be driving this trend in audio.)

While the long term effects of this blurring is unsure, one thing seems certain, engaging others in a conversation as opposed to a lecture will almost always result in a superior outcome for both parties.  This outcome will manifest itself in a group that is both empowered by better information and motivated to readily share their own opinions and viewpoints with others.  “As intelligence piles on intelligence, the speed changes…” and so on and so forth.  (But now I’m going too deep and again getting way off topic)

Anyway, the point is that the entire media ecosystem has become stale and devoid of life, devoid of dialogue.  This is a natural outcome of broadcast nature of our media sources. Consumers, unable to participate in the conversation must be satisfied to merely sit back and wait for Ebert, Jimmy, or Entertainment Weekly to give them the thumbs up.  Now I’m not saying that sitting back isn’t what most people still want to do, it’s just that there are a lot that have something to say and a lot more that wouldn’t mind listening.

The Internet appears to be providing an environment in which this new model can emerge, one in which consumers are producers and a true conversation can arise.  While initially the conversation will revolve around the topics already on the table (we’re all going to use this powerful new tool to watch episodes of “24,” “American Idol,” and “the OC” when and where we want), I would expect new topics to rapidly percolate up through the crusty shell of this base dialogue.  After the novelty wears off and it becomes clear that it’s still the same lecture, some or most will realize that this is actually not really utilizing the true potential of this bidirectional network, it’s not engaging in the conversation. 

It will be an ugly process.  Most of the initial content will be dull, uninteresting, and intensely stupid, but over time the quality of the conversation will improve and eventually surpass the vacuous eloquence of “The Bachelorette.”  I can guarantee it.  I’m not even sure what it will look like.  As a matter of fact, taking a stab at it brings to mind covers of magazines like "Popular Mechanics" in the 1950s depicting the cars of the future.  I’m sure it’ll be comically off base.  But the fact remains, a billion consumers with HD camcorders embedded in their cell phones are probably going to come up with some pretty interesting dialogue.

Anyway, this stuff fascinates me.  I want to start the conversation with others who are similarly intrigued.  I’ll just keep rambling until that happens.