Monthly Archives: April 2008

Super-meta-cagalisticexpialadocious

Pretty much every time a new post is published on New Media Mogul it ends up aggregated or referred to on someone else’s blog. Only quite often in surprising places. Like one of my posts from last week mentioned So You Think You Can Dance as an example of how there is a voyeuristic element to media that consumers enjoy. Next thing I knew, my post had been aggregated to a blog about So You Think You Can Dance. Needless to say my post looked very out of place on the site (and now I wonder if this post will end up on the site too).

So it was good when I discovered yesterday that a journalism student, Sherri Powers had spotted my latest posting on collective intelligence and had made a contribution to the J-Talk blog, quoting me. I’m not mentioning this as a means of self promotion, but because I want to take up some of the points that Powers makes in her post.

Powers’ post came after a guest lecture from Dr Dianne Lynch, dean of the Roy Park School of Communications at Ithaca College. Lynch’s main point seems to have been that as collective intelligence enters the field of journalism, journalists are worried about the transformation that is taking place because they are supposed to be the experts on things. They are worried that they will become less credible or not needed if the public decides that they can get the same news from an average Joe on the Internet.

I think journalists will always remain the experts on things. People working as professional journalists have more than likely done an undergraduate degree in the area then spent a further year learning the ropes as a cadet at a media organization. In most cases they have skills in writing, researching and keeping up to date with issues that average Joe does not who spends two hours per week reporting on the news does.

Furthermore, unlike other industries, there are issues of trust involved with media, and particularly with news media. While we might be increasingly flippant about where we go for our news, with so many choices for content, old habits die hard and people stick to the news organizations they’ve grown to respect over time. Even if a citizen media site was to attain the sort of quality in news presentation that is expected from a professional outlet, I believe it would be a while before a substantial audience flocked to it.

This is why I think my analogy to the software industry is a good one for the media, and particularly the news media. Collective intelligence produces open source software that is extremely innovative, but this software isn’t likely to put Microsoft or Apple out of business anytime soon. Probably because the likes of Microsoft and Apple have been in the business for a long time, and consumers have come to know them as producers of quality products.

But like I said in my last post, there are some things that citizen journalists can do better than professional journalists. A famous example is the resignation of Republican Senate majority leader Trent Lott, which was brought about by the efforts of citizen journalists (To read all about it, click here). The point with the Lott story is that the politician made some racially offensive comments that weren’t ‘newsworthy’ enough for the mainstream media to carry. But then citizen journalists decided to look into the issue and found that Lott had made racist comments on numerous comments over a period of time. Their ongoing investigation of the issue caught the attention of the mainstream media and it made its way back into the big time, eventually leading to the resignation of Lott.

This was an important piece of work by citizen journalists, where they devoted their attention to an issue that the mainstream media really couldn’t justify using resources on. This is an example of how the two ‘tiers’ of the media worked together to hold a public figure accountable, and I think this is a model of how the media landscape could function. Instead of being competitors, professional journalists and citizen journalists could work together to make the news.

To return to computer software again, it’s really no different to what some major software companies are doing. For example Sun Microsystems sponsors the open source (and collective) efforts of OpenOffice.org and the innovations trialled in that program eventually make their way into the commercial Star Office. Media organizations are beginning to catch onto this idea with citizen journalism too, although mainly through submissions of photos and videos at this stage. There’s no reason why they couldn’t call for articles too, which would act as an extra source of information for the public, and an extra resource for journalists in their effort to compile the best reports.

A defence of collective intelligence in media making

Collective intelligence is a hotly debated topic amongst those of us interested in new media. In its basic form, it is the idea that everyone has a contribution to make, and when combined those contributions can create a quality product. It is the idea that is the basis of Wikipedia, an open source encyclopedia that has been the subject of much controversy in its short lifespan. Wikipedia controversies arise when the pages of political figures are hacked to contain inaccurate and sometimes scandalous information. But its biggest controversy arose when an analysis in Nature found that Wikipedia’s scientfic articles were nearly as accurate as those in Encyclopedia Britannica.

The insult to Britannica was that their articles are usually written by the foremost experts in the field, whereas the articles in Wikipedia are written by anyone who feels that they have a contribution to make to such an article. To those who supported the idea of collective intelligence in media making, this finding supported their contention that this approach can produce quality products. There are many others who remain unconvinced.

Jaron Lanier is unimpressed by the chaotic nature of collective intelligence. He believes that consensus is never reached in making media products this way; instead the products produced are in a constant state of flux and cannot be relied upon as being 100 percent accurate. Likewise, Terry Fisher warned of the lack of stable cultural reference points that might exist in a society that openly embraced the idea of making media through collective intelligence.

To my way of thinking, these commentators miss the point on collective intelligence. Collective intelligence also exists within the production of computer software, and is known as open source. In the open source software community, developers from all around the world form teams and work cooperatively on developing software. The best example of open source software is Linux, an operating system that contains many of the same features as found in Windows and OSX, as well as some that aren’t.

This is the freedom that open source software has – nobody expects it to be perfect. So features that might be too risky for a commercial application like Windows to include can be tried out in the open source software world. Mozilla Firefox is an open source web browser, and was the first application of its kind to feature tabbed browsing. The idea of tabbed browsing caught on and now the commercial browsers, Internet Explorer and Safari feature it as well. Likewise, OpenOffice is an open source alternative to Microsoft Office and pioneered the use of an XML based file format. Now Microsoft has followed suit in the latest versions of their office suite, because OpenOffice proved that it could work well first.

The same relationship could exist between Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica, or between the collective efforts of citizen media and the mainstream media. Citizen journalism has already proved that it can cover some issues more effectively than the mainstream media, mainly because of the limited time and space that the mainstream media can devote to any one issue. Likewise content can be developed in a collective and if it proves popular and workable, be developed into a stable product within the mainstream media. Consequently the mainstream media could leverage the advantage that collective media initiatives give them – a testing bed for new content and a forum for extending the coverage of issues; letting amateurs with an interest in the issue run with it.

Just as proprietary software producers like Sun and Novell encourage the efforts of hobbyist software developers to create new products that they can later refine and release commercially, mainstream media organizations could foster the efforts of citizen media makers in an effort to bring more innovation and diversity into the ‘stable’ world of the mainstream media. Jaron Lanier suggests that citizen journalists need leadership from a strong independent press, but this isn’t about the mainstream media leading citizen media makers. This is about amateurs and professionals working in a symbiotic relationship to create quality media products.

Attention all sporting organisations: social media is an effective weapon for promotion, use it wisely

Firstly, thanks for reading New Media Mogul’s first post in nearly three weeks. As much as I enjoy maintaining this blog, sometimes personal issues get in the way and that’s exactly what happened here. With any luck, this new post will mark the beginning of many months of uninterrupted blog posting. Now begins New Media Mogul’s latest post:

In a sign of the changing times, Swimming Australia has taken the step of warning its athletes that images they post to their Facebook pages are effectively in the public domain and they should be careful with the types of images they upload. The need for this warning has risen after swimmer Stephanie Rice, and her fiancee, fellow swimmer Eamon Sullivan were depicted as a ‘hot cop’ and a sumo wrestler while attending a dress-up party. These photos were uploaded to Rice’s Facebook page and have now found their way into the mainstream media. If you haven’t seen them already, check them out here, courtesy of The Daily Telegraph.

While it is understandable that Swimming Australia does not want their swimmers presented in a negative light, and wants a clean cut image for its swimming team, nobody was doing anything wrong here. While the photos of Stephanie might take on certain sexual connotations, she is simply a girl who is having fun at a party. And if people see these photos and find her sexy, is that really such a bad thing?

It seems that Swimming Australia has failed to understand the opportunities that are on offer here. Every sport needs personalities – people who transcend the sport, and boost ticket sales because punters turn up to see these people perform. Swimming has had a history of ‘pinups’ – Keiran Perkins, Ian Thorpe, Grant Hackett, Susie O’Neill and Gian Rooney to name a few. But with the exception of Hackett, these people have all retired and swimming needs to unearth some new personalities to ensure that the sport remains popular.

The other point is that most of these swimmers have carefully manufactured media profiles, with carefully selected exposure to mainstream media texts. But consumers are no longer buying this the way they were five years ago – these days they want to see real people with real personalities.

Stephanie Rice is a real person with an appealing personality, and the photos that have found their way into the mainstream media demonstrate that. Swimming Australia should not be afraid to let swimmers with personalities such as this emerge on the new media landscape of Facebook and other user-generated content sites. In this era of viral marketing, it is possible for athletes like Stephanie to attain a media profile without spending a cent.

This type of marketing appeals to the voyeuristic element that is creeping into media – spawning reality TV shows such as the latest big hit, So You Think You Can Dance. Swimming Australia could give their swimmers the freedom to use social media sites in whatever way they consider appropriate, and see new stars emerge within this medium to keep swimming as one of Australia’s premier sports.