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.

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.

[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

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.

We have talked about authenticity and disclosure and I think this song really puts the situation to music quite well. The truth of the matter is, you don’t know who you are talking to online, or if what you are reading is fact or fiction. I could be completely making this entire post up right now (but I’m not!).

As we wind down in our Social Media course, I thought I would share the music video for this song with you all. Check it out, and laugh along keeping in mind that it’s funny because it’s true!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GcVnhNjWV0

After much negative publicity they retracted the demand, but this is really an interesting concept. A town is governed by elected officials who bend to public pressure more easily than a corporation might. I wonder if this is something other companies are resorting to in order to regain that measure of control they have lost with social media?

http://http://www.newwest.net/city/article/city_of_bozeman_abandons_hiring_policy_on_social_media_passwords/C396/L396/

Anyway, just some food for thought on a rainy Tuesday. Puts the article “The Untamed Blog” in a whole new light!

Thanks for all the great discussion and thoughtful debate during the course…I really enjoyed it. I hope everyone has a great summer.

When I told a friend about the social media course I was taking, she enthusiastically pointed me to a site called honeybeebuzz.info. The site is for Honey Bee Buzz Marketing, a company that makes its living by charging other companies to spread the buzz about their product or message through online “pollination;” that is through social media tools and buzz marketing. Their call to action is “We’ll spread the buzz and you’ll be rolling in the clover.”

It was here that I found these new words and some interesting examples in their website blog. “Link juice” is the ability to boost search engine rankings by generating web traffic. The term “link bait” refers to videos that are so cool that bloggers and forum hosts want to link to them from their own sites, thus increasing their own cool factor by virtue of the link itself.

After reading a few of their blogs, it became clear that the tactic was part of creating their own buzz. Interestingly, there was not a lot of opinion or analysis, rather, self-congratulatory testimonials, examples of their own work, and not one comment on any of the blogs. Falling prey to the concept of “link bait” myself, when I clicked on button to share what I thought was a very clever viral video, I was given no less than 12 options to share their blog, most of which I have never heard of: reddit, stumbleupon, delicious, propeller, bebo, hi5, and technorati among others. It seems companies like Honey Bee Buzz Marketing are probably rolling in the clover cross-pollinating for tech-unsavvy companies who are just as confused as I am about which social networking tools are worthwhile. Instead, I found the video on YouTube and have included the link. The YouTube comments confirm the video’s cool factor (and with any luck, my own).

It was also in one of Honey Bee’s blogs that I came across an endorsement for a new Twitter app called Tweet Later. The idea of this application is to speed up one’s ability to tweet, since it can be “mundane and time consuming for today’s busy tweeple.” The app allows you to upload tweets in bulk, schedule tweets, or save and reuse tweets. Now, I’m all about getting rid of the mundane but is this for real? Twitter only allows you to use 140 words…140 WORDS… far from what I would consider mundane and time consuming unless of course you’re one of the followers reading the mind-numbing tweets of the thousands who think they’re tweet-worthy.

Maybe I’m starting to show my age, but I wonder whether we need all these apps. I’m not so old to think we should go back to the party phone days, but keeping in touch with friends or following those we think we like is getting very complicated. And it’s a lot of work. For organizations that want to invest in their relationship with the people who use these apps, the market it fragmented by these peer-to-peer apps. How many of them will still be here this time next year, or maybe the more appropriate question is how many more?

“Link bait” today, “tweedle de dun” tomorrow?

The instant it was uttered, the phrase caught my attention and pulled me from the Elle Magazine article I had been engrossed in. It was a rainy Friday afternoon in early May and I found myself discreetly scanning the crowded lobby of a Halifax hair salon looking for the female face that matched the distressed voice. I quickly zeroed-in on a young blond wearing an olive green hooded sweater and frantically speaking into a pink cell phone. I felt awkward continuing to eavesdrop, but her face and voice demonstrated such torment and sadness. I was compelled by her anguish. At the same time I was taken aback that she continued to have what was a seemingly personal conversation in a very public place. I quickly found myself enthralled by the seemingly one-sided conversation. The call continued for several minutes and the young blond, who I assumed was about seventeen years old, eventually regained her composure. I heard her say “later”, and she tossed the phone into a blue handbag seated on the chair next to her.

I had heard enough to ascertain aspects of the situation. It seemed the teen had recently lost a close friend. I gathered that the death had been sudden and unexpected. The young blond seemed to convey to the voice on the other end that she hadn’t been able to attain closure. She had struggled to properly mourn the loss. It seemed that the teen had built a Facebook page in tribute to her friend; and that making the page, and viewing the photos and posts others had added, helped her grieve.

I found myself thinking about the young blond, and the conversation, for most of that afternoon. After talking with a friend I learned that ‘grieving through Facebook’, as he called it, isn’t exactly novel. A google search confirmed that mourning via social media platforms is arguably commonplace. Tribute Facebook profiles, legacy MySpace pages, compilation YouTube videos, and even the condolence page of many funeral home websites, have become contemporary monuments. Further investigation revealed that numerous blogs, magazine articles and books have endorsed the benefits of online grieving. Grief experts seem to suggest that online mourning allows a person to tell their full story, in their own way, when the time is right for them. The medium allows a person to vent, find comfort through connecting with others, and to celebrate a loved one’s life. One expert suggests the act of physically typing, versus talking, is more cathartic; and that social networking sites provide individuals with the ultimate uninhibited outlet for grieving.

Adolescents’ online social networking following the death of a peer, a 2009 study published in the Journal of Adolescent Research, found that many adolescent users continue a relationship with the profile of a deceased person for several months after their death. The study suggests social networking sites facilitate healthy grieving by allowing an individual unlimited “freedom and opportunity to reflect back over their relationship with the deceased.”

Social networking sites are arguably impacting every aspect of the grieving process, including how friends and families are notified of a death. Earlier this year a helicopter bound for two offshore petroleum platforms crashed off the coast of Newfoundland. News of the crash spread like wildfire through various online social channels. Seventeen of the eighteen passengers onboard were killed, and within hours of the crash, long before officials had released the names of victims, a Facebook tribute site was established in memory of the sole female victim. Within hours the site had hundreds of members, and one television news program allegedly used pictures lifted from the site. Similarly, it has been reported that in the aftermath of the shooting at Virginia Tech University in 2007, some friends and families learned of the death of their loved one via the Facebook status updates of other students.

Recently an acquaintance told me that he tweeted about his father’s death minutes after his passing. He said the decision was mostly pragmatic. That it allowed him to forgo making dozens of calls during a time when he was emotionally exhausted. He said the messages and comments he received in response to his tweet were instrumental in helping him get through the ordeal. He also volunteered that social media was continuing to help him grieve the loss as he belongs to an internet support group.

While online makeshift memorials appear to do more good, than harm, there are a number of problematic by-products associated with the tributes. Journalists allegedly gleaned information about the identities of victims of the helicopter crash offshore Newfoundland through a Facebook memorial page; an investigative method that has raised some eyebrows. There have also been numerous instances of posts to social networking sites which have disclosed ‘unofficial’ and ‘delicate’ information, including the names of primary suspects in criminal cases. In 2008 a Facebook memorial site erected in remembrance of a Toronto teenager who had been murdered listed the name of her accused killers. The parents of the deceased girl had not given police consent to release their daughter’s name and were reportedly inundated with calls from the media. The memorial site also created a legal dilemma, as the accused killers were under age. Releasing and publishing their names was in defiance of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Social networking sites such as Facebook have become a place for people to grieve; a space to pay final respects, and to mourn. Technology is impacting every aspect of how we communicate with each other, including how we grieve and cope with incomprehensible events. Through cell phone cameras and web-enabled portable communication devices, the defining images from tragic events are being transmitted instantly, and largely without any gatekeeper. Technology allows us to reach out and express our feelings. It arguably defies the barriers of time and space and is profoundly impacting how we live, and how we continue living after death.