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?

Watching the web

 

"Anyone has the opportunity to make great content and get it seen" - Jeff Koenig on the potential of web series

 

The internet is changing the way people produce creative work. In the past year I’ve heard journalists, film and television producers, writers and comic book artists all say that the internet is an effective way to get your name known and explore the endless possibilities of a medium fast becoming part of everyday life.

Last year I wrote about web series in an article for the Sydney Morning Herald. It  focused mainly on established professionals exploring how traditional forms of entertainment could be adapted to work online, but also mentioned the possibilities for emerging artists.

But pigeon-holing the format to one purpose limits the unique style of web production. Web series creator Jeff Koenig says web series have the potential to go a long way and develop into more than a trial space for new shows.

“I think the original web video industry will grow in stages,” he says.

“For the next few years I believe it will act as a cheap development outlet for networks and studios; the best web shows will get picked up and evolve into another medium.”

Koenig, who is launching a website  about the format - Broadcast Assassin - started out looking at web series as a way of learning about film production,

“I’ve always been fascinated by the filmmaking process. However, it’s a very geographic industry in the states,” he said.

“Wanting to tell stories through a camera and not being in L.A. is a bit like standing outside a great restaurant you can’t afford to eat at; the door may as well be locked, but you can smell all the good food inside. I was drooling to film something.”

After years of thinking about online entertainment possibilities, and extensive research into how web shows could work, Koenig co-created, co-produced and directed The True Rules, a web show exploring the male psyche through a mix of unscripted discussion and vox pop questions.

He says Broadcast Assassin is focused on rallying the online community and give people the skills and knowledge to create successful web series.

“We’re at a point now where “capital B” Big Business is starting to notice the web as an outlet for original entertainment, but the rules haven’t yet been written.

“To me, the best part about a filmmaker having access to the web is that literally anyone has the opportunity to make great content and get it seen. I want to give independent producers the tools to make great shows and a place for them to start a dialogue with each other, so that their voice doesn’t get lost as the industry grows,” he says.

The launch of Broadcast Assassin on March 1 comes at a time when web series are popping up all over the news sites, television networks SciFi and NBC are utilising webisodes as additional material to shows like Battlestar Galactica and Heroes (respectively) and more and more web-based productions are being launched on an almost daily basis.

But it doesn’t stop there. Last week technology blog Digital.Mix commented on the release of a Nielsen report showing an increase in American viewing of video on TV, online and on mobile devices.

According to the report internet viewing is highest among 18-24 year olds, who watch an average of 5 hours and 3 minutes every month. This is closely followed by 25-34 year olds, with an average of 4 hours and 14 minutes of viewing online.

Unfortunately there’s no information on the percentage increase for online viewing over the last year, but if anything that suggests web series may finally be getting enough attention to be included in these types of reports.

With these viewing increases on what Digital.Mix aptly calls “the Three Screens”, it will be interesting to see what types of people begin creating video content for the online world and where the medium is heading.

Why blog?

Antony Loewenstein's The Blogging Revolution

A few years back, around the beginning of 2006, I began reading blogs by friends and family as a way of keeping in touch with them. From there I realised how many people across the world are actually utilising this form of communication and expression. I began looking for blogs by people in the arts industry – namely film, television and theatre. When I started regularly reading Stargate:Atlantis executive producer Joseph Mallozzi’s blog in the first half of last year, I also found another purpose for blogging.

Joe not only writes about what’s going on for the show he executive produces and writes for, but also about the film and television industry, about writing for screen, about the crew and cast, and also about other things which interest him – books and food spring to mind. He does an almost-daily “mailbag” question and answer session, effectively cutting out the middleman (media) and giving his responses directly and eloquently. While a lot of the questions are about Stargate (I believe he’s worked on all the Stargate projects save the original movie), a lot are about his other interests and the industry he’s working in.

What struck me then (and still does) is the fact that blogging can put a personality to a name and face that people may know. It’s also a great way to give people answers to questions they may have that the mainstream media won’t ask. Science fiction is a good example of this lack of media attention because is general it is not deemed “mainstream entertainment” (and why is a whole new topic which I won’t go into here). Being able to read blogs by people directly involved in the film and television industry can provide information that the relevant media parties may miss or be unable to report on.

Before I move on, I’d like to mention Joe’s book club. Every month or so he picks, or asks readers to choose, three books people can read and then discuss. It started towards the end of last year and has been a great success. Joe’s even been able to get authors like Lou Anders (also a prolific scifi editor), Jeffrey Ford and K.J. Bishop to drop by and answer questions from him and the other readers about their relevant books. Each book is given a week’s worth of discussion before moving on to the next. In itself, I think this book club not only gives readers a chance to ask well-known authors about their work, but has also created a great community of intelligent, interested speculative fiction (scifi, fantasy, horror) readers. It seems blogging can be more interesting and useful than I first thought.

One of the main discourses on blogging that I’ve heard about recently is the apparent threat it might pose to mainstream forms of journalism. I’ve often seen it referred to as a form of “citizen journalism” or, as the ABC might say “a type of User Generated Content”. Axel Bruns, a “casual observer” of journalism, says in this article that traditional forms of journalism are being overtaken by new forms like news blogs and other websites offering “citizen journalism”. Bruns’ thoughts shed some light on the fear many media organisations have when it comes to the internet and blogging.

As I’ve said here and here, I don’t necessarily think traditional forms of media are necessarily threatened by blogging or at risk of being lost, however, blogging does need to be looked at more closely by the media.

A good place to start might be the recently published book by Australian journalist and author Antony Loewenstein, aptly titled The Blogging Revolution. Based on two years worth of travel and research, Loewenstein’s book investigates the democratising processes blogging can provide, especially for countries often viewed as politically repressed. Focusing on dissidents and bloggers in Iran, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and China, the book provides and in-depth look at how citizens, or perhaps more aptly “netizens” in these countries use blogging.

In his introduction to the book, Loewenstein expresses a frustration at the mainstream, Western media’s lack of interest in blogging as a way of providing voices for these countries. He writes that very few Western countries have had coverage of the Iraqi war without a “Western journalist’s filter”. It seems despite a journalistic obsession with balance, much of the Western media has not looked further than “official” statements, while blogs from citizens in these countries, experiencing these events first hand, lay forgotten in the online world.

His book highlights the importance of blogging for countries that don’t get a lot of Western media attention. It can be a way of showing the world what people experience, and how they feel about their countries. Western society may often make assumptions about countries seen as repressed or oppressed but, without hearing from people there, how do we really know? Loewenstein’s book provided insights and information into not only blogging, but also the way citizens in Iran, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Cuba and China feel about their countries and their leaders – what life is like living in these countries. It’s more than food for thought, The Blogging Revolution is essential reading for anyone interested in the opportunities the internet can provide and the state of the world today.

There may be no definite way to define the purpose of blogs, but it’s apparent they can be invaluable tools in providing insights, forums and context globally. Maybe that’s enough.

Journalism in Australia – young people and the future

In this day and age it’s hard not to engage with journalism on some level. It’s in news agencies, on TV, radio and the internet, and with the development of globalisation it’s becoming even more important to engage with journalism on some level. So what is journalism like at the moment, and how could it change in the near future in Australia?

The answer’s not simple, and in an (arguably) postmodern world, everyone’s perception of the media is different. But there are certain views emerging which I feel the need to comment on. As someone who has both learnt about and practised journalism, it’s important to engage in the current perspectives on this industry, and to develop theories relevant to the individual’s experiences. Some of the views being thrown around at the moment seem to me particularly cynical.

One view which springs to mind is that young people are engaging with journalism more and more through new media, and ignoring the traditional formats. As a young person, I regularly go to networking sites like Myspace, online news providers like Google News (Australia), ABC Online, BBC Online and LiveNews.com.au. However, I also listen to ABC News Radio and ABC Radio National, watch ABC and Seven News regularly, as well as the occasional current affairs show, and read The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, local community-based newspapers and, sometimes, The Courier Mail. I admit it’s a lot of news, and not every young person may engage with the media as much, but the idea of young people accessing news from predominantly online sources seems ridiculous to me.

The internet is some fifteen years older, younger than the “young people” I am guessing these assumptions are aimed at, and as such it is still a relatively new platform for journalism. When something is new there tends to be more room for errors, exploration and trial-and-error processes. Some news websites have enabled user-generated content (UGC) by encouraging their audience to submit story ideas and media like photographs, audio or video and allowing comments on the content of the site. Some do so more than others, but in general UGC makes online journalism more involving for the public. Young people seem to enjoy being involved in the experience, so I assume that’s where this view stems from.

Having said that, a lot of the sites I visit have comments clearly left by people older than these “young people” talked about. The internet is a non-discriminatory format anyone can engage with, and to make the generalisation that young people get most of their news and information online is limiting how young people are perceived.

Most of the young people I know believe credible journalism is predominant in traditional forms of news like newspapers, radio and television. Online journalism has the potential to combine elements from all three of these forms, but it doesn’t seem to be quite there yet (at least not in a broad sense). It’s fast developing, but that doesn’t mean the other forms will die out just yet.

I was watching the ABC show Q&A (episode 15) last week, and heard the federal Minister for Small Business Craig Emerson voice an opinion of current media forms and new media forms which is similar to what I believe.

“Don’t write off the traditional media,” he says, “People were writing off newspapers a decade ago and newspapers are still, notwithstanding these current problems, are still going pretty strongly. I think it’s just a changing world.” (Craig Emerson, Q&A, Episode 15, 28/08/08, ABC1)

It is a changing world, but I think there’s a place in it for all forms of media. I find, in particular, the idea that newspapers are a dying breed, to be cynical and narrow-minded in substance. It may seem that way at first glance, with most major newspapers in Australia getting lower circulation numbers than in the past, but to say newspapers will die out is not seeing the rest of the picture. People still buy newspapers. Why, if the internet has the same articles for free? Or if the TV and radio news get stories before papers go to print?

I think it’s because of the experience. Reading a newspaper is different to reading news online, or seeing or hearing it. I don’t buy papers every day, but I make a point of buying at least one on the weekend, and usually two or three during the week. I like reading newspapers because they seem to have a depth to them that other forms of journalism don’t.

On the other hand, I like listening to radio news because of the immediacy of it, because it’s current and relevant and engaging in a way reading isn’t. Television is different again, with sound and images as well as a script, and I like to watch the news to see how things have happened. Online can be all three, and that makes it amazingly versatile. But there are aspects of each form which can’t are mutually exclusive to other forms, which means all sources of journalism will probably be around so long as the experience is enjoyed.

There’s also other benefits I can see from having different sources of journalism. In Australia, the media ownership is concentrated between a few organisations, which many believe has led to a lack of diversity of opinion in the media. I would argue that the diversity of formats for journalism means there is diversity in the opinions presented. News providers may be owned by one overarching organisation, but the people involved in online will be different to the people involved in television or print or radio, which means the news will differ between formats regardless of ownership. It may not be ideal, but it is at least providing some diversity.

While the future of journalism may be indeterminate, intangible or indefinable, I think we can all too easily assume one outcome without looking at other possibilities. Our own judgements define what we see as the future, but it’s important to look at other opinions and keep an open mind. Without that, what else is there?

The Flaws in UGC

It’s supposed to stand for User-Generated Content, but I’m beginning to wonder if that’s the correct term for the websites making use of it.

UGC has long been used by companies involved in the production of new software to iron out any problems. The theory is that consumers will voluteer to be part of a beta test and identify problems before the final product is released. It sounds good, the producers have a cost effect way of figuring out problems, and consumers get to “test” out the product before buying it. In that sense it can create a symbiotic relationship which often works quite well.

I have no problem with that type of UGC. I do have a problem with sites that are now taking advantage of the concept.

There are websites which are finally making full use of the internet’s capabilities. They can incorporate written text with picture, sound and video and allow users to comment on the information presented. Some may only work with one or two features, like written text and pictures, but generally these sites all allow user comments. It’s smart because the sites can figure out what users are interested in and generate more content from that. And users feel like they are being heard.

My issue with these sites is that they can choose which comments to publish. Of course, you need to have that option as a site facillitator so that you are not exposed to defamation, contempt or a negative reputation. It’s when this role is abused that things can get unfair.

Several sites I frequent have UGC features available, and I enjoy being able to use them. On some occasions I have noticed spelling mistakes in the written text and submitted a comment relating to the text and noting the mistakes. At first the entire comments were published and the mistakes changed. Once there was even a follow up comment thanking me for pointing out the mistake. But it has gradually changed. Sometimes the mistakes are left, sometimes the comments are not posted but the mistakes are changed, and most recently part of the comment was published, but the sentence noting the mistakes was not.

My qualm is that I am not being acknowledged for the help I am giving the site. This is not UGC. UGC is supposed to allow people to have a voice, not censoring that voice because it might make the site look like it’s run by people (we all make mistakes, remember?). A thank you would be nice, but I know I won’t get that because the only way I know my comments are being acknowledged is if the mistakes are changed.

Tech Troubles

Picture this: you go to a food court to have a quick coffee with your sister/friend before doing some Christmas shopping in the city. You plan on having a bit of a chat because the last week or so has been hectic and the two of you haven’t caught up. Sure, there’s the noise of other city-goers, lunches and straggly groups of teenagers enjoying the school holidays, but you expect that in the city anyway.

What you may not expect is to have a giant TV screen right in front of you. With sound. Playing daytime TV at home isn’t something I enjoy doing, let alone having one sitting in front of me while I’m out and have a million other things going on around me. What happened to reading a newspaper, book, or talking to someone in person or even on the phone while you’re having a break? Do people actually enjoy watching this stuff while they’re eating?

And the worst part, the line-crosser, is that these TVs (note the plural) were throughout the food court. I couldn’t escape them so long as I was there.

Is this what technology should be used for?

Slightly psychic sites?

I’ve been tracking the developments of the election for the local area where I grew up (Cowper electorate) on the ABC election guide for a week or so now. And it always seems to be updated a few minutes before I check it. The first few times I thought this was simple coincidence, now I’m not so sure. I’ve been running experiments with the site and I’ve come to the conclusion that it must be a slightly psychic web page which can predict when I will be checking it and updates accordingly (and it most definitely wouldn’t have anything to do with some kind of automated update system I can’t conceive of).

Now if only the results could be in tune with my hopes. I suppose the results don’t directly impact on me, but I have more than a simple investment in the area (more an unhealthy attachment, like a vine that’s outstayed its welcome) and I want someone who considers what’s best for the people, and makes sure that is at the forefront of their mind when they make decisions. It looks finalised, but I’m glad it has been so close, it means the electorate will be (hopefully) appreciated more. And the person elected can learn from their close victory to figure out what the community wants. Unfortunately I don’t think any slightly psychic powers will help in this area. But I’ll keep a close eye on developments.

And now I am on a mission to find other sites with slightly psychic abilities. The only luck I’ve had there is with User Generated Content pages at news sites, where I sometimes notice grammar and spelling mistakes and then visit later on only to find those mistakes gone. That’s definitely psychic abilities and clearly has nothing to do with me commenting on such mistakes for the site’s benefit. Magic stuff. Next thing you know scientists will be researching slightly psychic sites. Although for the purposes of diminishing the tongue twister value, they may want to call it something like “intuitive internet technology”, which really isn’t much better but sounds a bit more sciencey, in my opinion.

Techology and the "New World"

It’s recently been announced that internet giant Google has developed a way to show moblie phone users their location without needing a GPS reciever.

It’s been reported that the tracking feature is available in 20 or more countries and and the does not collect personal data from users.

What gets me about this is that while the intentions may be good, it sounds like something out of the great speculative fiction worlds of Orwell’s 1984 or Huxley’s Brave New World. And while I enjoy following technological developments, it can be startling to see things which may be convenient, also have the potential to be misused by people.

The internet itself is a great example. You’ve got one of the greatest communication and resource tools (possibly the greatest in this day and age) right in front of you. And so many different people connected. But still the internet is misused by bullies, opportunists and other people who don’t deserve publicity here. I like to think not by many, but who knows?

The thing is, the good should balance out the bad. In the case of the internet, while it’s still a highly debated topic, I believe it does balance out. There are lots of different opportunities available through networking sites and research is made much easer (I sometimes even search online for books I might need).

And I can see the merit of the new phone technology Google has developed. Sometimes you really do need to be able to see where you are. But I also believe it can be good to explore technology’s avenues. And writing is one way of doing that. It’s interesting to see that while technology is man-made, it often takes on a persona of it’s own. Yet really, the merit of technology can be largely based on individual intentions and opinions.