New and Old Media, Participation, and Information

The profusion of low-cost media production and distribution has led to the rise of an alternative citizen-led media sector. Is this a passing fad of enthusiastic amateurs or the beginning of a fundamental restructuring of the way media and news are produced and consumed? Will the current trends lead to more information, better information, and better informed people or to an infinite stream of unreliable chatter? Will it lead to a more politically engaged populace or to an increasingly polarized society that picks its sources of information to match its biases and ignorance?

ASSIGNMENT: Please read the executive summary of the Media Re:public Overview and one additional Media Re:public paper, and the executive summary, conclusions and recommendations of the Knight report. Use those as a jumping off point to explore either of those sets of resources in greater depth. You should delve more deeply into at least a few of the major challenges and possible solutions related to business models, the participation gap, and the changing media ecosystem (which are all broad topics, and can be considered from many perspectives).

Readings

• Media Re:public Overview - Read at least the executive summary
• Knight Commission Report on Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy - Read at least the executive summary, recommendations and conclusions
• Media Re:Public website
• Knight Commission report website

Additional Resources

• Jay Rosen, Open Source Journalism (video)
• We The Media, Dan Gillmor (the Introduction is a good start, so to speak)
• Jay Rosen, Bloggers vs. Journalists Is Over
• Jeff Jarvis
• Shirky on Social Media
• Pennenberg on electronic media and citizen journalism
• Publishing issues discussed by many
• Sourcewatch [1]
• Jacek Utko designs to save newspapers

--Rchopra 23:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Class Discussion

To read about "Disruptive Innovation", check out one of the best explanations (not in the video, but on the page) about it: http://www.claytonchristensen.com/disruptive_innovation.html

Comments on reading by D. Jodoin:

I have to say that this week has been some interesting reading. However, many of the conclusions and recommendations are built on a foundation of sand. In the Media RE: Public "Overview 2008" paper, the telling component for me was the statement made that...

"Rather than seeking to recreate some mythical point in the past at which news media functioned perfectly, we instead aim to identify areas where core journalism functions in a democracy are at stake and where there is potential for the networked digital media environment to offer something richer and more representative than anything previously available."

This statement - eloquently stated and true to its very essence - buries the fundamental value of what New Media truly represents in shaping our democracy; imperfect views of imperfect humans interacting in a social contract where the voices of the many outweigh the voices of the few. Winston Churchill once said, "History is written by the victors ... There are a terrible lot of lies going about the world, and the worst of it is that half of them are true.” Is this the "mythical point in the past" where news media functioned in perfection as the quote above states? In our readings for this week there were significant comments made regarding how equal access to the internet combined with educating the masses on how to understand and use it would create an environment where there would be no second class citizens in a new democracy. In reading that, I felt that it smacked of the sophic voice of Plato - describing a Utopian society where every voice is heard with equal weight. The internet - and new media - is not a classless society, it is not meant to be perfect; the ideas being shared enforced to some theoretical mandate of high quality and rigorous standards. The ideas expressed by the individual should be as reflective of their individual values as possible with it's influence on others being dependent on the strength through presence or weakness through absence of supporting voices by the audience at large.

I also had a thought in regards to solving the issue of accessibility. We sometimes think that proliferation of technology is restricted by the economic costs of building out that infrastructure. Yet many nontraditional means of doing so exist that the private sector is already looking at - providing the FCC and our government clear the path to allow it to occur. I will try to explain with a real example.

First watch this video of Walmart's time series of store locations... Watching the Growth of Walmart Across America

Interesting isn't it... However, you may ask... so what? What does this have to do with the internet and build-out of infrastructure?

Read this next...

http://www.androidguys.com/2010/01/12/rumor-sprint-working-with-walmart-on-wimax-build-out/

Interesting isn't it? Perhaps with some government support and funding, a joint collaboration between the FCC, Sprint/Nextel and Walmart, three very diverse groups could easily solve the issue of accessibility by the masses. Sprint with the technology of WiMAX, the FCC with the keys to the spectrum, and Walmart with the existing proliferation and ability to sell cheaply to the masses. Non-traditional partnerships are the key to our future.

--Lunatixcoder 13:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to respond to the following excerpt of the above comment:

Winston Churchill once said, "History is written by the victors ... There are a terrible lot of lies going about the world, and the worst of it is that half of them are true.” Is this the "mythical point in the past" where news media functioned in perfection as the quote above states?

I don't think the authors were suggesting that there was a point in the past where the news media functioned in perfection. The description of this point as "mythical" indicates that this idea is, in fact, a myth.

Furthermore, I think that the authors' quote you cited does not bury "the fundamental value of what New Media truly represents". The idea that new media may include more voices than previously is clearly evidenced when they write, "there is potential for the networked digital media environment to offer something richer and more representative than anything previously available." [emphasis added]

(Kaurigem 14:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC))

Wow! Hey... Thanks for the response... I think its great you responded! To clarify - as my words may have confused the point I was attempting to make - My reference to the "mythical point in the past" was to emphasize that indeed it WAS mythical and that as always has been the case, news media has always been tainted and biased. But it is those biases that sit at their core values. Its the difference between the term News and Journalism as defined in the use of terms section of the Media RE: Public Overview.

In response to your second comment, I would stand on the position that more does not automatically translate into better or richer in a causal relationship. Giving everyone a forum to speak is admirable and should be the goal. But it doesn't become a better medium unless the end results are synthesized into some societal aggregation. Massive individuality is not what forms a community. Also to point out one more thing on this is that my second point was to emphasize that a classless society on the internet is not a society at all and does not add value unless it somehow translates into the formation of those groups and communities... i.e. the coffee house we spoke about in class and as such class formation is inevitable in that respect.

--Lunatixcoder 15:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

All of the recommendations, objectives, and strategies, outlined and detailed in the Media Re:Public Overview and the Knight Commission report are viewed through the lens of a free and open society. Democracy is a given. Control over ‘who says what’ is not an issue. What appears to be at issue, is how are we going to "maximize the availability of relevant and credible information", give “people the tools, skills and understanding to use information effectively" and promote public engagement.

From the Knight Commission Web site [2]: there appears to be one organization that is proactively addressing the ‘how can we get something done' question. "The Federal Communications Commission has launched an examination into the Future of Media and Information Needs of Communities in a Digital Age. In its announcement, the FCC cited the report of the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy, which has been influential in helping to structure the FCC’s inquiry."

Is the government actually trying to be part of the solution, and not controlling and obstructive?

---

Charlesscott 20:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Government control is always the question, but by addressing it from a legal point of view it will be restrictive. Freedom of speach advocates will always find issues with the limitations any law imposes. The government might be onto something, not just with the FCC citation, but also with the qualification on who can be an accredited journalist. The organizing bloggers into a quasi union [3] will include more questions then just journalism.

The internet however can be used for not just the uncontrolled dissemination of news but for the quality control of it as well: see http://factcheck.org/. The relentless flood of information needs to be somewhat narrowed down for us to be able to consume it in the first place. Efforts are required from both sides, from the publisher that it is credible and from the reader/consumer that they can continue to rely on the publication for accurate information.

Gkorodi 22:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Links from Class

Amarquis 16:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC) I found this an interesting meta editorial on the topic of New and Old Media, Participation, and Information. In this case it's how media obsession with new technology alone is making customers more powerful. "NSFW: Cherchez la fame – or why the media’s obsession with Twitter campaigns will make customer service smell French". As the title indicates, it has a touch of salty language so it may be NSFW -- Not Safe For Work.

• Pew report: Understanding the Participatory News Consumer
• Global Voices
• Guardian UK's unique business model
• OhmyNews
• Trent Lott remarks
• Macaca Moment