Open Media

“It’s a few nanoseconds into the Big Bang, we have four light elements and no galaxies” – Doc Searls describing the state of new media

Original session description from the Agenda: The disruption of traditional media models and the rise of participatory media in the US and around the world are well-documented but not yet well understood. Are the simultaneous evolution of "new" and "old" news media creating a new, more engaged, more democratic public? Is this process organic and self-correcting or are there areas where the vast market of ideas is not serving the public interest? How can we meaningfully measure the impact of a system that is evolving before our eyes? What interventions are having results?

This session will be an open discussion of what projects, tools, ideas, actions, might make the emerging online news and information environment as good as it can be. Hand-wringing and rehashing of "bloggers vs. journalists" strictly discouraged.

Some assertions we might discuss:

1. (Old media are broken) In the United States, content creation and dissemination possibilities afforded by new technology are disrupting the scarcity-based business models of all forms of traditional media. There are already examples of market failures to meet the information needs of a democracy, and the trend is accelerating. The effects are less acute in countries with more dominant public media or lower Internet penetration, but the tendencies are the same.

2. (Bloggers didn’t break 'em) The rise of non-professionals critiquing, aggregating, pointing to or creating news-related content is parallel to the changes in the traditional industry; it is not the cause of the disruption.

3. (Bloggers won’t fix 'em) At least not on their own. The new participatory media sphere is expanding rapidly, but without intervention will not develop the specific functions needed to fill the gaps created by the crumbling of the traditional institutions.

4. (We can do almost anything) Emerging technologies offer incredible potential to enhance and improve every aspect of the news and information environment: reporting accuracy, depth, context, responsiveness, comprehensiveness, analysis, links to civic engagement.

5. (But we won’t) The mechanisms of the market and the non-market that currently drive investment of human and other resources are not working to take advantage of that potential. Not in old media, not in tech companies, not by individuals, and not by most grant-making institutions. There are bits of innovation here and there, but it's not enough.

6. (Unless you help) Coordinated efforts by multiple stakeholders are needed to stimulate media projects with public service missions, regardless of their revenue model.

7. (Use cross-breeding to let 1000 new hybrid flowers bloom) Projects should be based on cross-sector, multi-media collaboration and experimentation that builds on the expertise, resources and energy extant in traditional media institutions, technology companies, civil society, and the audience itself.

Perhaps some promising examples of "1000 new hybrid flowers" blooming here in the [newly announced Knight News Challenge Winners][1]

What do we want from the news?

Functional roles

Reporting

Coverage

Providing context, analysis, “making sense of the world”

Watchdog function

Building the public sphere/community/social capital, promoting engagement

Qualities needed to achieve those functions

Classical (I purposely leave out “objective” -- it’s lost its usefulness)

Timely

Independent

Relevant

Accessible (language, price, delivery)

Comprehensive

Accurate

Politically Neutral

Balanced

Pluralistic

Representative of the community

New

Transparent

Interactive

Participatory

Multimedia

Multiplatform

What Kinds of Content Are We Talking About

Can we put "news" content into three categories?

Information – i.e., various kinds of content directly from the source and/or publicly available: sports scores, stock prices, calendar of City Council meetings, state budget

Reporting – stories or other items created by author(s) based on gathering information from one or more sources and/or observing events

Deliberation – analysis, opinion, discussion

Hypotheses for discussion

No one who makes any pretense of interest in current events actually relies on blogs or other amateur content alone for her news (or ever will)

Low-income and minority communities are underrepresented as both topics and authors in online media: as much as in traditional media? or more?

Online pointing activity (blogging, social bookmarking, aggregating) tends to amplify a specific subset of mainstream content, making other content less visible

The long tail effect has limited power in the arena of current events - time sensitive material needs to be found in time to be relevant, it can't build an audience slowly

Linux/FOSS development is either the wrong model for participatory media or the right model interpreted the wrong way (meaning: in order to achieve the qualities and carry out the functions of news media, participatory media needs to be more organized and less volunteer-based than most people seem to think)

Editing in every sense of the word is indispensable and there are critical editorial functions that are not being fulfilled by the non-traditional media

Hyperlocal reporting might be accomplished w/volunteers, but only with a carefully designed robust organization, probably with some central support structures

News agencies may end up ruling the world

It's not about people losing their willingness to pay for the news: in fact Americans have long had a culture of getting broadcast news for “free” and perhaps paying for the delivery systems, it is primarily the traditional newspaper industry’s failure to re-imagine themselves that is responsible for the business crisis they are in

-30-