On Tuesday, I attended a very interesting and informative seminar, “Utilizing New Media to Measure Effective Communications Strategies” hosted by Waggener Edstrom Worldwide and the Adfero Group. (http://www.waggeneredstrom.com/reg/events/registrationAdfero.aspx). The seminar focused on a recent analysis comparing the ways that the major political campaigns are using new and traditional media (and how successfully their messages are being received in both cases.) Using a technique/software pioneered by WaggenerEdstrom known as the Narrative Network, perceptions, keywords and associations with the candidates from hundreds of media articles were “mapped.” (The same was done with hundreds of blog entries and comments.) These maps were compared with the stated core messages and themes from the candidate’s websites. It was quite fascinating to see how candidates were portrayed by the media and how this compared with the ways that they seek to portray themselves. Then, by comparing the two comparisons, (one from traditional media and the other from the blogosphere) we were able to get a better handle on how bloggers treat certain issues differently or interpret candidate actions differently (speeches and policy announcements, for example.)
You can download and view the very well-done presentation at: http://waggeneredstrom.com/dl/Analysis_of_2008_Presidential_Candidate_Messaging_FOR_WECOM_2.ppt
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Monday, September 24, 2007
Establishing rules for chaos . . .
In Chapter 10 of his book (We the Media), Dan Gillmor raises some interesting questions about the notions of copyright protections and libel/defamation in the vast, “uncontrolled” space known as the internet. As a writer myself (www.talesfrommydarkside.com), I was very interested in Gillmor’s discussion. While I fully support the idea that the interest should be an area where anyone, anywhere can speak freely and express his/her opinion, I believe that the same standards of respect for ownership and attribution rights should apply. Frankly, there is no difference, in my mind, if someone reprints my work in a printed newsletter or blasts it in an e-mail to thousands of subscribers. In this sense I do not believe that the internet is a vacuum where laws and standards of professional journalism do not apply.
However, there is one area where the internet IS different and we must take these differences into account when we seek to enforce our laws. Jurisdiction. Different countries—not to mention different states and municipalities within those countries—have developed their sets of laws which regulate decency, content related to business, medical and legal practices, etc. The internet poses a unique challenge for these laws because information which is posted legally in one place, may be illegal when viewed across the world (or across state lines). Unlike traditional mediums, such as television broadcasts and newspapers, authors cannot restrict where users access the information being offered.
To meet this challenge, there are several options, two of which Gillmor mentions. 1) a process of zoning, through which content IS tailored to a particular audience, depending on where the content is being accessed, and 2) and inter (or supra) governmental body which would set standards and guidelines for copyright and libel/defamation issues. As for #1, I am weary when information is being censored before I see it (so, unlike blurring out offensive images or “bleeping” offensive language, I wouldn’t even know what I’m being forbidden to see or hear.) And #2 seems quite unlikely, given the underwhelming success of the United Nations and its associated organization to find a consensus on world opinion and enforce it. (And it would be quite unrealistic to expect an intergovernmental body to do what states and national governments can’t even agree upon. (i.e. copyright restrictions and the bounds of Free Speech.)
However, there is one area where the internet IS different and we must take these differences into account when we seek to enforce our laws. Jurisdiction. Different countries—not to mention different states and municipalities within those countries—have developed their sets of laws which regulate decency, content related to business, medical and legal practices, etc. The internet poses a unique challenge for these laws because information which is posted legally in one place, may be illegal when viewed across the world (or across state lines). Unlike traditional mediums, such as television broadcasts and newspapers, authors cannot restrict where users access the information being offered.
To meet this challenge, there are several options, two of which Gillmor mentions. 1) a process of zoning, through which content IS tailored to a particular audience, depending on where the content is being accessed, and 2) and inter (or supra) governmental body which would set standards and guidelines for copyright and libel/defamation issues. As for #1, I am weary when information is being censored before I see it (so, unlike blurring out offensive images or “bleeping” offensive language, I wouldn’t even know what I’m being forbidden to see or hear.) And #2 seems quite unlikely, given the underwhelming success of the United Nations and its associated organization to find a consensus on world opinion and enforce it. (And it would be quite unrealistic to expect an intergovernmental body to do what states and national governments can’t even agree upon. (i.e. copyright restrictions and the bounds of Free Speech.)
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Rolling my own news . . .
As I continue to look through Dan Gillmor’s We the Media, I was struck by what he calls “rolling” the news. Dan describes how he felt during the days and weeks of uncertainty that followed the 2000 US presidential elections. (He was teaching in China and the limited amount of coverage the debates over hanging chads he received left him wanting.) So, he combined several sources—from online streaming of US news radio to local coverage by his hometown California newspaper—and soon realized that the coverage he was putting together or “rolling” was more complete than he could have hoped for even if he had had a 24/7 stream of US television news network programming.
As I thought about it, it’s what I do all the time. When an important event happens, I know exactly where to go to get the best live video and audio (either CNN.com or MSNBC.com), then for the commentary I jump over to the journalists and newscasters that I prefer (NPR.org) then for any gossip/uncorroborated details of the story I head to my “unsubstantiated news providers” (TMZ.com or Wonkette.com). I would never just depend on ONE of those sources for my news. NOR do I even consider that I’m somehow being redundant or repetitive in how I follow events. In fact, I have become so accustomed to “rolling my news” that I view my multi-sourced search as the way for me to get the “whole” and complete picture.
As I thought about it, it’s what I do all the time. When an important event happens, I know exactly where to go to get the best live video and audio (either CNN.com or MSNBC.com), then for the commentary I jump over to the journalists and newscasters that I prefer (NPR.org) then for any gossip/uncorroborated details of the story I head to my “unsubstantiated news providers” (TMZ.com or Wonkette.com). I would never just depend on ONE of those sources for my news. NOR do I even consider that I’m somehow being redundant or repetitive in how I follow events. In fact, I have become so accustomed to “rolling my news” that I view my multi-sourced search as the way for me to get the “whole” and complete picture.
Oh yea, THAT’s why we have journalists . . .
I was really reminded of the reason why we depend on journalists when I read Dan Gillmor’s We the Media (http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/wemedia/book/index.csp). Dan, a journalist himself, reveals that one of his role models in the field was I.F. Stone who was best known for his self-published I.F. Stone's Weekly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.F._Stone). As Gillmor describes, Stone’s investigative journalistic method was to “scour and devour public documents, bury himself in The Congressional Record, study obscure Congressional committee hearings, debates and reports, all the time prospecting for news nuggets. . .”
Living in Washington, DC for the last 5 years has demonstrated to me that, to some politicians and government officials, the “the less the public knows, the better”, hence the uber-secretive attempts at slipping in obscure questionable line items in budgets or making announcements about key government decisions late on a Friday afternoon in July. I believe journalists are most useful to society when they expose and reveal what may otherwise go unnoticed by the general public. In Stone’s case, he was the first and only journalist to question the authenticity of the official accounts of the Gulf of Tonkin events. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident) The internet definitely facilitates the ability of journalists (and ordinary citizens) to really seek out events that should be news or, at a minimum, should be known by the general public. (After all, you no longer have to travel to the county clerk’s office in NC to search for a record because, chances are, the records are online.)
Today, I believe that too many journalists have changed their focus from finding the news for me to interpreting/analyzing/explaining events to me. I would prefer that journalists stick to the kind of fact-finding that Stone dedicated his life to (and influenced many, including Dan Gillmor) and leave the analysis and commentary to editorialists and, hopefully, a vibrant and responsive public opinion, which may include me, if I am so inclined on a particular issue.
One note: Some see such diligent “Stone-esque”searching as a vendetta or a witch hunt (read Sen. Larry Craig and the cracker-jack staff of the Idaho Statesman) but so what? If you go looking for dirt, and you find dirt . . . you’ve still found dirt.
Living in Washington, DC for the last 5 years has demonstrated to me that, to some politicians and government officials, the “the less the public knows, the better”, hence the uber-secretive attempts at slipping in obscure questionable line items in budgets or making announcements about key government decisions late on a Friday afternoon in July. I believe journalists are most useful to society when they expose and reveal what may otherwise go unnoticed by the general public. In Stone’s case, he was the first and only journalist to question the authenticity of the official accounts of the Gulf of Tonkin events. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident) The internet definitely facilitates the ability of journalists (and ordinary citizens) to really seek out events that should be news or, at a minimum, should be known by the general public. (After all, you no longer have to travel to the county clerk’s office in NC to search for a record because, chances are, the records are online.)
Today, I believe that too many journalists have changed their focus from finding the news for me to interpreting/analyzing/explaining events to me. I would prefer that journalists stick to the kind of fact-finding that Stone dedicated his life to (and influenced many, including Dan Gillmor) and leave the analysis and commentary to editorialists and, hopefully, a vibrant and responsive public opinion, which may include me, if I am so inclined on a particular issue.
One note: Some see such diligent “Stone-esque”searching as a vendetta or a witch hunt (read Sen. Larry Craig and the cracker-jack staff of the Idaho Statesman) but so what? If you go looking for dirt, and you find dirt . . . you’ve still found dirt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)