Tag Archives: Citizen Media

Why blog? (Why bother?)

Firstly, hello and welcome back to New Media Mogul after a brief break in transmission there. Don’t ever let it be said that it is easy to maintain a blog. I’ve found that with other pressures on me, and deadlines due, the blog is the first thing that suffers.

It’s interesting, because the question of ‘Why blog?’ or more broadly ‘Why create social media?’ is one of the questions I am attempting to answer in my research. Reflecting on the creation of New Media Mogul, it came about because I wanted a focal point to force me to write on a regular basis and keep my skills sharp as I spent a number of years researching social media.

Lately I’ve been writing for other purposes, mainly working on a paper I’m going to present at the ANZCA conference in Wellington, New Zealand next week so I haven’t needed to turn to the blog to keep the flow of ideas happening.

But people create social media for a variety of reasons and although I’d (somewhat naively) like to think that it’s because they have a great interest in the subject of their media, I don’t think this is always the case.

There are people like me who blog because it is part of their professional practices – they want to be able to write regularly, network with other like-minded bloggers and build up a reputation.

There are people with stories to tell, although with these types, commercial interests often take over. These people will usually end up being freelance writers who will wind up working on a professional blog, or appearing in a newspaper column or else their blog will be turned into a book (I can think of a few times that this last scenario has occured).

There are people who do it for the attention and fame that comes with it, and obviously for the associated dollars too (Just think of celebrity blogger Perez Hilton who I’ve noticed recently has started doing a segment on the Nova radio network).

Then there are people who don’t seem to derive a lot of fame from creating citizen media. So what is the deal with these people? Are they just the unlucky ones whose creations haven’t been quirky or interesting enough to achieve the fame of someone like Perez Hilton, or whose writing or presentation style or other media skills isn’t good enough to do this in a professional sense?

AFL to players: Don’t read fan blogs

Before I begin, I need to give a thankyou to Half Back Flanker for the contents of this blog post. If I hadn’t been reading this site then New Media Mogul might have missed this story entirely.

It would appear that the AFL has advised players not to read fan websites, for fear that the vicious player appraisals could lead to depressions, according to the Herald Sun.

You can read the article for yourselves, but it certainly seems that the AFL is doing nothing to build up a relationship with sports fans who are citizen media makers. It would also seem that the AFL is not very well read on emerging forms of media, as the article is quite clearly referring to people who post on forums, considering at one point that it talks about users stealing the identities of players. As pretty much anyone who uses the Internet would know, the interactions and behaviours within a forum are totally different to those found within a blog.

However on the plus side for sports fans, it does show that they have gained some power through social media, with even the always busy AFL coaches being familiar with fan sites like Big Footy and the ‘viscious cyber-bullying’ that is found within them.

It’s obvious though that the AFL doesn’t see the value in sports fans who are citizen media makers, with the article at one point quoting an AFL official, Pippa Grange, who described them as people ‘with not much better to do’.

New Media Mogul always considered that the AFL would be one of the more progressive sporting organisations when it came to dealing with new media issues, so it is disappointing to see that they have about as much interest in social media, as as much understanding of the potential of the medium as the other sporting organisations covered recently. The International Olympic Committee, with its extremely censored Beijing blogs, is now starting to look quite progressive in its use and encouragement of social media.

Citizen media and commercialism

While the idea behind citizen media might be that anyone has the opportunity to create media, the paradox is that to successfully create media requires dedication and time, something which a lot of people who have to hold down a job, raise a family, or do any of the many other things that keep people occupied, don’t have time for.

For example, New Media Mogul is produced because it is aiding in my completion of a Doctor of Philosophy; in any other circumstances I would probably not be able to find the time to blog about new media issues.

But the point is that the most successful citizen media products are put out by people who either have a business model behind their site or are at least in part, paid to blog. Examples of this are Bryanboy from the fashion industry who is hired by organisers of big fashion shows to provide instantaneous reviews of the shows, and FanFooty from the sporting industry; a site that runs a ‘super coach’ game and provides news and scores on the side.

There is nothing wrong with people making money from their citizen media contributions, but the question is, does this need for commercialism dictate the extent to which citizen media can bring about change on the media landscape.

One of the hopes for citizen media is that it will give a voice to groups and views within the mainstream media that are ignored, underrepresented or misrepresented, yet if commercialism comes into the equation, then perhaps these groups will continue to be as unrepresented as they are in the current, very hegemonic, mainstream media.

Commercialism may also eventually dictate the range of content that citizen journalists choose to cover, if like more traditional media, it becomes driven by advertising. This has been witnessed recently in the mainstream media, with ANZ withdrawing advertising to The Footy Show because of its treatment of women and the Nine Network being subsequently forced to respond by ‘resting’ Sam Newman. If advertisers gain the same sort of power over citizen media producers, then perhaps a form of censorship around citizen media content will take hold.

This is why the effect of citizen journalism on the media landscape needs to be carefully examined, because what appears at first glance to be a more democratic and open minded form of the media, may ultimately be an extension of all proprietary mediums, but simply with a lower entry cost.

Just how democratic is citizen media?

Proponents of citizen media often talk about the democratic ideals inherent in the medium. And sure, it is certainly more democratic than mainstream media because the cost of entry has been lowered significantly. Instead of requiring printing presses and broadcasting infrastructure, to be a player in the citizen media industry, you only need a computer and an Internet connection.

Yet despite social justice efforts like the One Laptop Per Child program, there are many people in this world who have never owned a computer and never will. There are even more people who have never had an Internet connection in their homes and never will.

So a pertinent question, as we move from what I’m calling the proprietary media landscape dominated by corporations to the discursive media landscape made up of corporate media professionals and citizen media makers interacting with each other, is just how far have we really lowered the cost of entry?

Subsequently are we moving from a Western dominated media that serves corporate interests, to a Western dominated media that serves the interests of those involved in it? In other words, how many Iraqi or Afghani bloggers are there? What about Somalian or Zimbabwean bloggers?

There’s bound to be some, but not as many as middle-class, well educated people who dominated the media in the first place. So while the present situation in media might be an improvement over the past, just how much of an improvement is it?

How do we judge citizen media?

In my last post on New Media Mogul, I talked about Molly’s Monday Machinations, which is one of the leading AFL podcasts going around at the moment. As I said then, it is an authentic product because the creator reminds me of the type of guy you’d strike up a conversation with on the way home from the game, dissecting the team’s performance. It’s obvious that he is passionate about Australian rules football, considering he puts out at least 4 podcasts a week, and he’s well read.

It’s also obvious that the mainstream media still plays an agenda setting role for his podcast, further confirming some analysis conducted on New Media Mogul several months ago now. The podcast is an authentic product because we know what Molly’s biases are – he’s an unashamedly passionate supporter of Australian rules football and a Hawwthorn supporter. This is unlike a piece from a football journalist in one of the metropolitan newspapers, where we don’t know what team they follow and we don’t know if they’re into football, or if it’s just a job for them.

But how else do we judge this content? By traditional standards it isn’t very engaging, and wouldn’t give The Footy Show a run for its money, despite all the controversy that show has created of late. Yet what is it about citizen media that makes it an engaging medium?

Is it some sort of voyeuristic quality? Do we enjoy getting a glimpse into the lives of other ordinary people and what their thoughts are on certain things, in a non-contrived kind of way?

Is it some sort of rejoicing or interest in the banality of it all? In much the same way that people watch Funniest Home Videos for people making fools of themselves, do we watch citizen media because people get up on their soap boxes and sometimes say outrageous things?

So is this how citizen media should be judged? As another form of entertainment, even if it could be entertaining in a peverse kind of way? Or is it because we enjoy the simplicity of this kind of media, in much the same way we enjoy those conversations on the way home on the train?

Or is it some sort of reaction to the mainstream media and all its politics? Then again, considering citizen media producers like Molly are ultimately informed by the mainstream media, are we simply just putting a layer between ourselves and the media influence we’re trying to get away from?

I’m not sure how many of these questions I have answers to yet, but they are all relevant in trying to determine what it is about citizen media that makes it so popular, and what sort of issues arise from its popularity.

The future of journalism

I don’t specifically have an interest in the future of professional journalism, only in how it intersects with citizen journalism, but the topic has generated some interesting debate of late after the recent Future of Journalism summit. It has spawned a blog post on The Age website and a special episode of ABC’s Media Watch, which you can either watch or view a transcript of.

It’s interesting that there are some experts who see a future where armies of citizen journalists will work alongside a select band of journalists and editors in bringing the world its news. Personally I don’t see this as the point of citizen media – it has different aims and ambitions to the mainstream media and the opportunities it presents might be lost if the media landscape was to function in this way.

As I said in the previous post it is good to see content emerging from bloggers that is interesting and authentic and free from the sanitization of the mainstream media. An example of this I’ve uncovered recently is Molly’s Monday Machinations which is a vodcast that appears to be presented from the creator’s bedroom. It’s never going to replace The Footy Show or Before The Game but it is a highly informative and comprehensive program from a passionate fan of Australian rules football. But the point is that the lack of production values make it more authentic and consequently more interesting. Molly is the type of guy you might strike up a conversation with on the way home on the train and dissect the game with, and to have this point of view disseminated within the media landscape is what makes citizen media cool.

When new media turns nasty

New Media Mogul has recently started paying attention to blogging within the fashion industry – holding it up as a good example of how a media facing organisation can use the opportunities created by the social media software movement to its benefit. Now it appears that an ‘insider blog’ about the fashion industry called Maghag has been launched, which exposes the unpleasant side of the fashion industry in much the same way that the recent anti-Ted Ballieu blog exposed the ugly side of the Victorian Liberal Party.

A whole separate debate could be had about the appropriateness of these insider blogs, but it is hard to argue that the ‘no holds barred’ approach that is often found in blogs makes for more original, authentic and interesting media content than the overly sanitized approach of the mainstream media.

You can read the full article here, and a big thankyou to my father, John Macdonald, for sourcing this article.

The fashion industry gets it right

Sporting organisations might be struggling to get their head around new media but at least the fashion industry seems to understand it. Organisers of Australian Fashion Week paid for some ‘elite’ bloggers to travel to Sydney to cover the event last week. According to Rachel Wells in The Age:

‘We’ve invited some of these guys here because our role is to get people talking about Australian fashion. And when you’ve got bloggers that provide immediate commentary within hours, even minutes, of a show finishing, and they are communicating to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people around the globe, why wouldn’t you get them here?’ says Australian Fashion Week founder Simon Lock.

One of the bloggers invited, Bryanboy believes that the power of the blogger lies in the ability to give uncensored, unedited fashion commentary to a global audience. As he says, ‘I think readers trust us because they know we don’t have a vested interest…We don’t have editors or advertisers to please like magazines and I think that gives us a lot more cred. We tell it how it is and people really value that’.

The thing to note about the fashion industry is that its media coverage is different to that of sport. It relies on monthly magazines like Vogue and Harper’s Bazaar to get its products out in the public domain – so blogging is a god-send for the industry because now it has almost immediate access to its consumers. Sport quite self evidently has never had this problem but it could still learn from Bryanboy’s point – fans appreciate a view where there is no vested interest. And making content exclusive on the web as in the case of the IPL does not encourage citizen journalists to cover sporting events.

IPL discourages media sharing by fans

The normal preoccupation of New Media Mogul is media sport – in the changing relationships between the media and audiences, there seems to be plenty happening within this sphere. There’s also a lot of money tied up in the media coverage of sport, making the situation interesting as new forms of media and social media movements supplant older, more established forms of media.

New Media Mogul has already featured numerous example of this but the latest comes from cricket’s Indian Premier League, as the tournament has banned news organisations the event from supplying photos to their own websites or the websites of any other organizations. Tcovering his would appear to be because they want all traffic looking for photos of the event to come to their own website and view them, where the photos are also offered for sale. Consumers can purchase a single, extremely high resoultion photo for $199 and by the looks of it download the photo and have it printed out or whatever else they may desire.

The point about this practice is that media sharing seems to be a way to encourage fan interaction with a sport in this new media age, and so making any media surrounding the sport exclusive to one particular site on the one hand, and then so expensive to obtain on the other hand seems to have turned fans away from the IPL, at least in an online sense.

For a tournament that was so hyped and so talked about amongst cricketing fans the world over, to date the league’s ‘fan page’ on Facebook has only managed to secure 713 people and the paucity of media available on this page is telling, with only 9 fan pictures contributed. In comparison, one of the AFL’s most popular teams, the Collingwood Football Club has 3,695 fans and in addition to this 91 fan pictures have been contributed.

IPL is doing better on other social media sites with 243 results found on Flickr, although many of these seem to be team logos and screen shots, so they don’t count as genuine contributions of fan media. Likewise on YouTube there is plenty of media, but once again much has been repurposed from television and is not genuine fan contribution.

It has been reported that attendances at the matches are not what organisers of the tournament expected, with many tickets having to be given away to ensure that games have sufficient spectators. So it is unclear how large a part the decision to make all media content surrounding the tournament exclusive to the IPL’s website; thus ensuring that the enthusiasm that fan made media brings to an event is somewhat diminished; has impacted on this lack of attendance. But it is becoming increasingly clear that fan culture as displayed through social media is becoming an important element to the success of sport, and in particular media sport.

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.