A new semester begins
We’re about to re-launch this blog. Since the first delivery of this graduate course three years ago, much has changed in the world of social media. As students blog here about their interests in this arena, it’s clear that the rules of the game (presuming there are any) are a moving target at best. But we can still search for best practices. That’s what we’ll be looking for as we share experiences and ideas here. Here’s to starting a new dialogue.
Social media impact on the business of media
I wanted to return to an earlier theme, that is the effect of the social media explosion on traditional media. It’s an issue that concerns me greatly, both as a former journalist and as someone who has managed (?) media relations for several years.
I recently had a telephone call from a journalist with whom I had had a strong working relationship for some time and who wanted to voice her frustrations. Burned out after several years in a high-stress environment, combined with some personal upheaval, she had won from her employer a new assignment on a much more agreeable beat. Recent cutbacks, however, had forced her back into her old areas of responsibility where she was finding that, not only was she expected to do more with less resources, her old sources were less communicative, less free with information, and more reluctant to share information.
Welcome to the world of the news media in the age of citizen journalism or, as producer Ira Basen labels in a current two-part documentary for CBC Radio, Media 2.0.
Basen posits that elimination of the mediator when news and information is shared citizen-to-citizen using myriad new media tools, has put more power into the hands of citizens – provided they have the inclination and the wherewithal to accept the challenge. For many citizens are fundamentally lazy, and the availability of a wealth of information does not in anyway guarantee that citizens are ready or able to receive it.
This speaks, of course, to those like Andrew Keen, who we met earlier, who argues that the kinds of standards, ethics and operating procedures that journalists apply in interpreting a story are critical to ensure accuracy and accountability.
Basen cites Keen, who participated in a lengthy debate during the 2008 Couchiching Conference with blogger Paul Sullivan. Keen argues that social media provide a platform for people who “don’t know what they’re talking about”.
The full debate is available from the CPAC Web site:
http://cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&pagetype=vod&lang=e&clipID=1837
It’s a position Sullivan, himself a former journalist, rejects. It’s about time, he says, that non-traditional voices in conversation replace the traditional one-way flow of information that characterised the news business for over a century.
Basen suggests the growth of new media has provoked a fundamental shift in the way many people receive important information about their world and their environment. And it’s a shift with profound implications for the business of media. Where previously editors served as gatekeepers, custodians of truth and journalistic standards, controlling access to the expensive tools of media production, the new model allows the audience to decide. Instead of being talked at, citizens now have the ability to participate in the conversation and, even more important, restrict the flow of information to the topics that interest them.
In this is the inherent danger for those who are uncomfortable with this evolution. Does it matter that citizens are hearing only the voices they choose to hear? Keen believes it does, arguing that “the whole of western epistemology is based on an idea of objectivity.” He sees the growth of social media as more than technological: it reflects instead the forty-year growth in public mistrust in and disengagement from authority. Many reject the notion that journalists, despite the mantle of objectivity that many journalists still adopt, are necessarily telling the truth or the whole truth.
The implications for media are clear. The Globe and Mail, faced with an imminent strike by almost 500 unionized workers, is just the latest major media outlet to face financial hardship because of the twin effects of a declining economy and the loss of advertising revenue and readership to online media.
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/media/story/2009/06/26/globe-labour.html
The CBC story cites John Hinds of the Canadian Newspaper Association as saying that a big hurdle for conventional media is their inability to translate the movement to online media into profit. While many traditional media – the CBC and the Globe included – continue to make large pieces of their current and even archival content available for free, some have moved to online subscription services. The challenge, of course is that consumers need not rely on traditional media to be a conduit for their news. Alternative free services like Yahoo are readily available, as are dedicated blogs and social networking sites.
And that’s natural, according to author Clay Shirky, who argues that attempts by traditional media to harness online media are bound to fail. Online communities grow, he argues: they cannot be built according to the old rules. And, for the most part, media companies that have attempted to use social media to their own ends have really only created a new form of broadcast: real conversation there is rare, and tends to look more like online letters to the editor.
http://shirky.com/writings/broadcast_and_community.html
The reality of the local journalist is that, not only have the resources for editing and reporting of news contracted for traditional media generally, but that for many in the audience her product is no longer of relevance to a growing segment of the audience. And, I’d suggest, there is evidence that despite Keen’s concern that audience is not necessarily becoming dumber or lazier. As networks develop they also evolve, and additional points of view, additional perspectives and complementary topics are likely to be incorporated. It may be more difficult than Basen suggests for citizens to act as gatekeepers to exclude topics and points of view that are inconsistent with their own. If that’s true, as McLuhan suggested, the medium is the message, and the development of online communities and networks is itself potentially democratizing.
The second part of Ira Basen’s two-part series, Media 2.0, airs Sunday, June 28 at 11:00 a.m. on CBC Radio.
For the love of a good book…
I’ve been reading a fantastic book over the course of the past few weeks. It’s called The Good Mayor by Andrew Nicoll. I love this book. It is beautifully written, rich in detail and aesthetically pleasing on many, many levels. I googled the book and found glowing reviews from other readers who also feel as deeply about the story (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2526070.The_Good_Mayor) The book is pleasing not only for the story it proffers but also for the art work on the cover, the weight of the paper, the ragged edge of each page…I tell you all of this because as I consider the impact of social media on our world, I wonder if we will eventually lose some of this aesthetic appeal and charm in lieu of computer-mediated delivery of messages, stories and art.
The concept of aesthetics has its roots in Greek, French and German philosophy and speaks to the nature of beauty and our interpretation of it. The word can also be used as a noun meaning “that which appeals to our senses” (http://bambooweb.com/articles/a/e/Aesthetic.html). Literary works tap into our aesthetic senses through word choices, rhythm, tone and language. Traditional literary works also appeal to our aesthetic sense through their physicality–the paper on which the story is printed, the art work on the cover, the illustrations inside, the texture and weight of the book all play a part in how our sense respond–positively or negatively–to the piece.
Social media also offers its own form of appeal–to stay with the literary example, we can certainly read an entire book online and still enjoy the beauty of the words and the magic of the story, but, for me something is lost without feeling the weight of the book in my hands. The most conspicuous difference for me is that art carries an emotionally affective appeal while computer-mediated messaging conveys logic. And, while I recognize the amazing strides we have made with social media in terms of connecting with one-another, I question if we are losing some of the beauty that once surrounded us in our bid to mediate everything.
From a public relations perspective, I certainly support the need for advancement and I recognize that social media presents us with unprecedented opportunities to connect with our audiences. Utilizing new technology opens doors for us that may have previously been closed or inaccessible. I question however, if we lose something when we utilize technology versus investing in a more traditional mode of communication. Perhaps I am overly sensitive or feeling particularly overwhelmed by my cell phone ringing, the tweets flying into my inbox and the posts on my FaceBook wall…but…I have to wonder what we give up in exchange for this level of communication.
Anyone who has ever experienced the pleasure of relaxing on a rainy day with a good book and a cup of tea can likely relate to my sentiments…I can hardly imagine doing the same thing with my laptop!
And now, back to my book…right after I update my FaceBook status…
Keeping up with the Joneses (or, Jacksons)
Yesterday, an extremely important and talented man passed away. The death of Michael Jackson, a.k.a. the King of Pop, was sudden and many people turned to their social media networks to express their sadness, their shock and their memories. I, for one, remember the soundtrack of my first day in high school being MJ’s “You Wanna Be Starting Somethin.” It definitely pumped me up for the stressful day ahead! So when I first heard of Michael’s death I refreshed my status and posted an MJ quote on my Facebook to alert others of what was on my mind. Apparently, I was not the only one.
According to Pete Cashmore of Mashable: The Social media guide (www.mashable.com), the news of Michael Jackson’s death was a hard and fast blow. Ten years ago, we would have waited at least a few hours before discovering such news. Now the exchange is immediate as social media applications grant us the capability to code and decode messages instantaneously. Now, media outlets are sometimes the last people to hear the news! (For example, the news of the famous Hudson River plane crash was being shared on Twitter before news agents had even got a hold of the story).
What is interesting is this need to mourn online. Grieving used to be an incredibly personal and private process; however now it is as mediated as my feelings on the weather! As Kelly mentions in her previous blog entry, witnessing a stranger’s grief should be an awkward and uncomfortable situation, however online, it seems rather normal. Some may find it to be incredibly therapeutic—it feels good to let it out! And in the case of Michael Jackson, the social media applications provide an outlet for people all over the world to grieve and share together.
This morning during my habitual social media “lurk”, I really noticed to what extent this news was affecting people. His name, photographs and links to his videos seem to be on almost every blog, every tweet, and every message board! Yesterday, according to Cashmore, the news of Michael’s death almost made Twitter crash as “22.61% of Tweets currently contain the phrase ‘Michael Jackson. ‘MJ’, meanwhile, accounts for 9% of Tweets right now. More than 25% contain the name ‘Michael’. In total, at least 30% of Tweets are remarking upon the star’s tragic passing, and that’s likely an understatement”. That was yesterday, I wonder where the stats are today? With the controversial news that Michael Jackson may have in fact succumbed to a drug overdose, Twitter must be about to burst.
One disturbing and odd occurrence which sprouted from MJ’s death was the false rumours of the death of two other significant artists: Jeff Goldblum and Harrison Ford. These are completely fabricated lies created by different spoof sites, and although this is incredibly distasteful, what is most unnerving is the lack of research or reflection had by tweeters prior to retweeting. These rumours flew at the speed of light and became so intense that Goldblum’s camp had to release a statement assuring fans that he was, in fact, very much alive.
The speed at which these messages make their rounds is astounding; just ask celebrity blogger Perez Hilton. Yesterday, Perez wrote an incredibly distasteful post about Michael Jackson faking injuries to get out of his new shows, but that was before the artist was confirmed dead. The moment the news came, Perez pulled the post but it was too late—every one of his followers had already seen the post. He has been the victim of Michael Jackson’s large fanbase’s hate mail (or hate tweets?) since the neglectful post was published.
All of these stories about blog posts and rumours are distracting us from the true and important story: Michael Jackson, a musical genius and one of the greatest popstars of all-time has passed away. To this day, my father remembers where he was and what he was doing when he learned about Elvis Presley’s death. He was listening to the radio in the car, and the talk show host was crying, mourning the loss of the King of rock n roll. My dad said he found it to be a very tasteful and humble dedication, as it was honest. Let’s try to remember the King of Pop in the same way.
Expert? Specialist? Looking for Authority?
New media is constantly changing. As soon as we attempt to define it we will find that it has once again evolved. Just as the applications or tools are changing so are the players. New or social media has afforded an arena for an individual to voice his or her opinion; it seems lately that almost everyone has an opinion about social media. Who is an expert, who has authority — fodder for thought, indeed.
An ‘expert’ is defined as being “experienced or having, involving or displaying social skill or knowledge derived from training or experience”[1]. While ‘authority’ refers to an accepted source of information, advice, etc., or someone who is an expert on a subject”[2]. And, unlike the public relations profession there doesn’t seem to be credentials that designate one an expert in the field, the same way IABC, CPRS or PRSA does. Many are becoming knowledgeable and even perhaps specialists, but experts?
I’ve recently come across several blogs on this topic, and while Doug Firebaugh is a social media strategist who possess over 20 years of experience in the marketing field and has been immersed in new media since 2005, he does not refer to himself as an expert. However, there are hosts of individuals and companies that do and some with under a year of experience within the new media field.
According to Firebaugh, there are four levels of authority in social media leadership, however the two main levels are perceived authority and true authority[3]. In the first, the individual looks for what they can obtain from social media. With the latter, the focus is on what an individual can put into social media, to grow it and help others do the same[4]. The other two levels are promotional and knowledge authorities. Promotional comes after perceived and is what you promote out into the marketplace (you, your message, its brand) while knowledge is the next step and it comes once you posses knowledge and education about social media. People are reading what you have to say and engaging with your content[5].
He further suggests a fifth level, personal authority, which comes from individuals learning and implementing as much as possible about social media, to make it as great as possible. As public relations practitioners, I’d argue it is our role to develop our personal authority and develop the personal authority of our organizations. Ideally, as more scholarship is done on the PR and new media front and more experts emerge in this area there will be an increase in knowledge authority.
The way I see it, at this stage there would be very few true ‘experts’ and individuals who possess ‘true authority’ in social media. Why? There simply hasn’t been time to achieve the status, the following and the results needed to merit that title, especially given the constant changing nature of this medium. I would argue that there are a lot of individuals who are focused on the objective of true authority, what they can put into social media to make it better and they may be specialists, strategists and advisors but experts? I’m not sold, how about you? Do you consider yourself an expert, a specialist?
Interested in reading others’ thoughts on this? Chris Brogan is president of New Media Labs and he offers some thoughts about what an expert of social should know. Scott Bradley, a social media strategist and author of Network Effectively, guest blogged on the personal branding blog about the rise of fake experts. The trusted.md blog has an interesting post on the growing backlash against social media experts.
[1] expert. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved June 24, 2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expert
[2] authority. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved June 24, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/authority
[3] Firebaugh, D. (2009, February 20). Social media marketing – the 5 levels of authority found in social media. Retrieved June 24, 2009 from http://socialmediablogster.com/?p=481
[4] Firebaugh, D. (2009, February 20). Social media marketing – the 5 levels of authority found in social media. Retrieved June 24, 2009 from http://socialmediablogster.com/?p=481
[5] Firebaugh, D. (2009, February 20). Social media marketing – the 5 levels of authority found in social media. Retrieved June 24, 2009 from http://socialmediablogster.com/?p=481
Understanding Facebook in our everyday lives
From sites dedicated to helping parents understand Facebook to articles attempting to define“Facebook friendship,” the idea of interacting with the many people you know through one space – whether they be friends, acquaintances, co-workers, family or strangers – is becoming a popular discussion topic among individuals and researchers alike. However, in my mind, it’s not a question of if Facebook is affecting our lives, it is how, why and what does it mean.
Long before I cracked the books in September to begin to understand this brave new world of online connections, I found myself thinking, “Something is going on here, and I want to better understand it.” After reviewing communication theory, online research practices and social media strategies throughout the past nine months, I’ve come to realize that my inquisitive mind is locking on to something more than just a hunch.
I’ve come to position myself on the postmodern side of the social media phenomena: For me, it’s simply not an option to dismiss online activity or to challenge its value by pitting it against traditional forms of communication such as face to face. Rather, each medium has unique features that work together in complex ways we are only just beginning to understand.
Theories that challenge the development of meaningful online connections compare the environment to face to face communication and are quick to point out what computer mediated communication (CMC) lacks as opposed to what opportunities it can present. However, theories such as social information processing theory demonstrate that relationships developed through online mediums can be meaningful.
And the prevalence of CMC in our lives provides the depth required to test and expand such theories. danah boyd is a researcher who’s work I have come to appreciate and cite over the past several months. She’s written a lot about the use of MySpace among U.S. teenagers and how the connected space helps articulate identity and friendships. Still, other researchers have looked more closely at the role Facebook is playing in the lives of university students: it’s been shown to help articulate one’s identity and to bridge acquaintances online, and to play a role in the maintenance of close relationships. However, there is still much we don’t know. For example, recent data from Nielsen Online indicates that people aged 35-49 years were the fastest growing age group to join Facebook in 2008. However, current research only explores the use of social network sites among teenagers and university students. This cohort represents an area where further research is required.
Taken together, social network sites, and social media represent rich environments for individuals to converse and communicate and those patterns have implications for how we communicate, how we define relationships and how we interact with others, including friends and organizations.
Yet, while I have read the research and articles to make these connections, I also recognize that there are sound arguments to challenge these positions as well, and there are some who will never acknowledge the value that online communication can bring to one’s life. A recent article in Newsweek was also trying to make sense of the meaning of Facebook among friends. The author articulates: “But could virtual friends, like the group of online buddies that reached out to Sue, be just as helpful as the flesh-and-blood versions? In other words, do Facebook friends—and the support we get from them—count?”
I argue yes; these relationships count. If this past year – filled with articles, class discussions, papers, and yes, even tears - has taught me anything, it’s that sites such as Facebook are challenging traditional notions of identity, privacy and friendship. And while the social media ‘flavor du jour’ may change, the new patterns and expectations such environments are creating among individuals are here to stay.
Whether it’s studying the sites to answer a research question or making sense of social media to support an organization’s communication strategy, those who are in the business of relationship building would benefit from ‘facing’ Facebook, Twitter or YouTube, to understand the environment, who’s using it and how it’s being used. Facebook is more than just a status update and Twitter is about more than just a popularity contest between Ashton Kutcher and CNN.
Indeed, something is happening and I look forward to even more readings, discussions and personal research to help contribute to the conversation interested in figuring it out.
