Follow the Leader

The competition between Ashton Kutcher and CNN to see who could reach 1 million followers on Twitter raises some interesting questions about social media. What stands out to me is what it says about the people using and engaging with different forms of social media online.

As a celebrity, Kutcher is actively engaging with a community of fans and others interested in his work, allowing him to give updates without the spin a media source might have on what he’s up to. On Twitter, he can speak for himself and clear up any misunderstandings without worrying so much about how it will be perceived by others.

It’s clear that taking a ‘celebrity’ like of the biggest critiques of the race to 1 million is that it comes off as egotistical at first glance, especially where Kutcher is concerned, as this analysis from Nieman Journalism Lab notes. But underneath the “let’s see if I can beat a well-known news network on Twitter” assumption is a means of raising money for malaria relief efforts and, at last update, it’s “close to $1 million”.

But more curious than how it works for Kutcher is why CNN engaged in this race. What was their purpose in trying to get to 1 million followers before him? Perhaps it was reflective of a struggle between “old media” and new, as Daniel Terdiman’s article on cnet news suggests. But does it really give any indication that television or film will give way to the web? While this is a new perspective on the situation, I’m not so convinced it represents the old vs. new media discourse. 

One angle barely touched on is what CNN’s participation implies from a journalistic perspective. Here is a news network prolific in reputation and close to omniscient in presence, effectively going up against a well-known celebrity. What would be the purpose of CNN getting to 1 million followers before Kutcher? What would they gain from that? How is it, in any sense, a journalistic act?

A news network that is perceived as competing with an individual, regardless of whether it was intended to be competition, highlights a change in the role of media organisations. Journalism is supposed to be a way of watching over the estates, a voice for the people, a way of transmitting information of public interest. Over time it seems as though changes in society have affected what is considered of “public interest” and how the journalism industry works.

Ratings, and sponsorship and various other factors now play a part in the media landscape which has, in turn, affected what news networks cover, how they cover it and how the public perceive it. There is a reason so many news websites now offer ‘comments’ and ‘opinion’ sections, and why they do so well. People want to express their opinions, but often they also want to criticise what a journalist has reported (or correct spelling and grammar, as the case may be). This relationship between journalism and the public hints at a mass cynicism towards the industry that was once partly a voice for the people.

The final question here is whether news networks actually consider every thing they do, whether they think about what will be in the public’s interest. Among other things, Twitter has given journalistic organisations like CNN an opportunity to hear from the people and improve based on that feedback. But are they actually considering their role as journalists when they seem to be playing in a popularity contest?

Blogging and journalistic standards

 

Has line between personal and professional logged-off?

 

The internet is blurring the lines between professional ethics and personal freedom when it comes to journalists having personal blogs. 

Last time I wrote about blogging I briefly mentioned the rivalry between bloggers and journalists that has taken the media world into a frenzy of fear and scepticism. Journalists and bloggers like Antony Loewenstein (c.f. introduction to The Blogging Revolution) are among those who think that the two forms are different enough that any competition felt is a psychological thing, and frankly I’m inclined to agree.

But what about standards for journalists who keep personal blogs? The Guardian reports here about a recent spat between business journalist Adam Tinworth and representatives of the UK’s National Union of Journalists (NUJ). The gist of the article is that the NUJ is calling for journalists like Tinworth to follow “basic journalistic standards” when he’s blogging, but also raised questions of whether journalistic standards should apply to a personal blog.

My thoughts are that professional standards are for the professional work of a person and, so long as a personal blog is not infringing on laws, it can and should be what the individual wants it to be. The internet is an open forum for people to discuss what they will and the individual’s professional life should not have to dictate how they express themselves.

In many cases the professional will influence the personal online – teachers may comment on news stories about education, doctors may weigh in with their thoughts on health issues, but that doesn’t mean they would say the same things in a staff meeting or at work. Opinion is opinion and it shouldn’t be subject to the same scrutiny and professional expression.

That doesn’t mean a whole bunch of journalists with personal blogs will throw ethics to the wind and write whatever the hell they want – it simply means it’s at the individual’s discretion to choose when to apply their professional ethics.

If you take a Kantian approach to personal freedom then so long as you do no harm to yourself or others you are free to do what you will. A more modern, entertaining take on freedom of expression online can be seen in quarterlife, which at times raised questions of conflict over the protagonist broadcasting her opinions of people to an online community. How “harm” is interpreted will, of course, affect what different people do, but ultimately the law is there to help prevent harm deemed significant and anything else is painted in shades of grey.

The disctinction between personal and professional blogs has been somewhat diminished by mainstream media adding blogs as part of their sites. As this article from mlive.com indicates businesses can gain a lot from embracing aspects of the online world like Twitter, Facebook and blogging.

I can see the pros to this use of social media, but there are also cons. The idea that the media need to be directly competing with independent and/or personal blogs, for example, I find a little petty. But my main concern is that by utilising things like blogs, professional and personal standards will come into question a lot more.

I think the real question this issue poses is that in such an open medium, where anyone can search for your personal information, how do you separate your work life from your personal life?

Job jumping traits of Gen Y may save them financially

Getting more than one job may not be the end of the world

Photo: tlkativ

The global financial crisis has sprung more uncertainty than anything else in the past decade, and it’s more widespread than any other situation in my lifetime.

People are worried about losing investments, losing money and losing their jobs, but what about the vast number of Gen Yers who don’t yet have a secure job to worry about?

I think if anything people are going to have to learn how to hold down more than one job at a time, particularly when it comes to industries like hospitality and retail, because less and less employers want to invest in full-time staff with financial situations just barely hanging in balance. Plus, these industries are the ones that often need workers, especially part-timers and casuals.

Although the recession worries me, I find this aspect of the situation riddled with irony.

As The National Business Review reports, it’s a commonly accepted fact that Gen Y often move from job-to-job to get what they want out of work. Job jumping (as I like to call it) has been skewed as a negative trait of this generation, but it could be an important factor in surviving tough economic times.

The diversity of skills that come from working in more than one industry, and the desire to work in different environments, might just make Gen Yers adaptable enough to deal with working harder to pay the bills.

This time last year the idea of having three or more jobs would have seemed insane to almost everyone. Even during the onset of the economic crisis there were people both older and younger who thought it ridiculus.

In October last year the editor of News.com.au, David Higgins, asked me to write an opinion piece in response to recruitment agency Talent2 accusing Generation Y of being “untrustworthy” in the workplace. Their stance revolved around research that showed a significant amount of young people access social networking websites like Facebook and Myspace while at work, and divulge information about their employment.

My response covered a variety of issues with the research which I won’t go into again here, but one of my statements was that I had four jobs and was a full time student. A response from one young person, “Emily” to that statement was that I must be stupid because of all the tax I’d have to deal with (I’m paraphrasing, but you get the idea).

Four jobs sounds extreme, I know, but they were a combination of seasonal work and contracted work that didn’t take up a lot of my time. They did, however, prepare me for working more than one job as a graduate. Now, more than ever before, I think people will have to start thinking about working more than one job at a time.

Sure, the tax might seem bad but maybe, just maybe, it will stop so much job jumping from Gen Y.

On sharehouses

So long and thanks for all the sh*t

Photo: Amazing Amazone

In the last three years I have lived with an average of nine different people a year in sharehouses around Brisbane, and in that whole time I’ve never written all that much about them. I thought John Birmingham said it all pretty well in He Died With a Felafel in His Hand and that Richard Lowenstein’s film adaptation showed it all. Turns out there’s an endless amount of stories and angles you can deal with, so I’ve got my five cents’ worth to add.

It all revolves around house work.

Things might start with the dishes getting to a stage where they devour the benchspace in the kitchen, move on to the garbage and recycling spilling foul-smelling unidentifiable watery stuff on your clothes and escalates from there. Maybe you have to cut the hedges at the front of the house with little pink stationary scissors because no one else will organise to get it done. Maybe you have to throw out the rotting pile of fruit that’s claimed the floor adjacent to the dining table.

Sure, you get that all the time. It’s part of the Great Sharehouse Experience, and it makes up half the funny stories you can tell once those days are behind you.

What I didn’t know was that moving is just as much a part of this Great Sharehouse Experience. I’ve never heard much about it before – I suppose because in sharehouses you often get people coming and going in between lease renewals. So when my last sharehouse got sold I got the full moving fiasco without warning.

It starts small enough, like the dishes. Someone accidentally takes something that’s clearly yours and brings it back, no problems. Then you realise that they’ve also left behind furniture, plants, rubbish and, oh? Is that a bean bag filling up our garbage bin so we can’t put anything else in there? Wonderful.

It’s even more fun in a big house. Play clean-ups and find the giant box of skank clothes left by one girl, or the broken outdoor seat that someone brought home and no one wanted to claim after they realised how unfixable it was. Plus, if you have an owner overseas, enjoy finding stuff he’s hidden away like that giant, scary metal lamp behind the hot water system.

My favourite, by far, is the endless masses of cardboard boxes, bike parts, car parts and other rubbish – usually found in, or adjacent to, the garage. This is always more rubbish than you could fit into two giant garbage bins and more than enough recycling material for two of those wheelie bins. Imagine a pile of cardboard and rubbish so big it starts to take up a third of the reasonably-sized driveway, and comes up to your knees in height. Now imagine trying to squeeze that into a compact two-door car.

Now imagine realising you don’t have anything to do with 90 per cent of that crap. Bike? What bike? No one who ever lived here ordered a new bike – oh, wait, our housemate’s sibling got it delivered here. Our housemate who is conveniently out of town while we’re here slaving away in the sun, ripping up stupid boxes we aren’t responsible for so we can have a better chance of getting our bond back.

We stood there, hot, sweaty and tired. A day before the lease runs out and seriously pissed off that we have to deal with this stuff at our old house, even if it is only to let the $800 cleaners in and get rid of the crap. Fuming at our (friends) housemates for ditching us with so much crap and swearing as cardboard cuts our fingers and dust clogs up our airways.

I was pissed off, doing the work with my two current (and thankfully amazing) housemates but feeling like even a barking dog would set me off on a crazed, hissing rampage.

Enter the real estate agent, a day before the lease expires, with a bitchlook at us for being there and a glimmer in their eye promising us bond hassles.