Tiffany Monhollon: The Future of Communication

It’s difficult to picture a future without communication being a large part of – well, everything. We live in an age of instant electronic communication that characterizes and informs the way we operate our lives, essentially on every level in the developed world and increasingly in the rest of it. This creates an interesting dependency, especially for a new generation.

Looking Forward, Who Will Make Sense of the World?

When the VP of PR at Disney shared this video at a PRSA conference I attended this summer, I quickly found myself sharing it with everyone I knew and engaging in some interesting conversations about communication, information, authority, knowledge and the future. It may or may not predict the future of the media, but it’s certainly something worth talking about – in the future, who will organize information and help us make sense of the world?

One of the biggest responsibilities of communication is the sharing and preserving of knowledge. It always has been, since the time of oral traditions being passed from generation to generation. In the modern world, the responsibility for fact, accuracy and the preservation of history has become largely the burden of the press, which has played an important role in creating standards, organizing knowledge and helping people find important information. They didn’t necessarily always get it right, but checks and balances, codes of conduct, ethics, standards and norms were put in place to make sure the publics interests were protected. 

Now, in an age characterized by participatory media, the role of making sense of the world is being opened up. The world “publish” is no longer a gatekeeper controlled process, it’s the name of the button you click to post your own thoughts, ideas and insights. 

This matters to communications, because in the world of self-publishing, blogging, participatory media, there may be informal standards, but there is no true oversight. And without standards, oversight and codes of ethics to govern not just the content, but how it’s ordered, organized and used, the future of communication – especially in its relationship to knowledge – could be a bit uncertain. 

The Challenge: The Changing Definition of Expertise and Authority.

This brings me to an interesting question: In the future, will experts be defined those who filter and present knowledge, regardless of how much or what they know? My thesis adviser gets very riled up when I bring up blogging and self publishing, in terms of expertise. “They’re just regurgitating primary research, not adding any new knowledge to the mix,” she exclaims, (I’m paraphrasing). We debate about it, and I can understand her perspective. 

To many, the blogosphere appears to be a world in which anyone can learn the rules and own a term on Google, making him the instant “expert” on the topic, regardless of actual expertise in the subject matter at hand. A world where the definition of expertise is in flux and controlled largely by math rather than comparison to knowledge presents a challenging image of the future. One in which wikis, blogs and podcasts outweigh encyclopedias, books and traditional media because of their ease of access and participatory nature. And whether or not that is a good or bad thing is a huge debate in and of itself. But the question remains, in this world, is there room for actual knowledge, truth, or fact?

A Future of Opportunity – For You

In a participatory culture that’s characterized by online communication, individualism is increasingly defined through the collectivism of online communities. As thoughtful, professional blogging shows us, there are people who care about ordering and making sense of the world, promoting good ideas, and preserving integrity in the process of online communication. 

This poses a great opportunity for thinking people everywhere to join the conversation and begin building their own knowledge, sharing their ideas, and building expertise. And it’s the responsibility of these same people to impose standards, quality and ethics into their own process.

The future of communication really boils down to whether or not responsible, thoughtful people will govern this truly free democracy under principles that secure the future of communication while making it interesting, relevant and valuable.

Tiffany Monhollon just launched a new blog, Personal PR, relationships that work for you.

Comments

[Ricardo Bueno]

What would it all mean if we didn't have the opportunity to engage in meaningful conversation with people? A blog is an extension of who we are and it's a forum for continued conversation. (Some are more developed than others but only because the lesser developed are finding their voice...I say engage with them too and help them find their voice)

Quoting you,
"is there room for actual knowledge, truth, or fact?"

I certainly hope so! I'd hate to think that we're evolving into a group of individuals who have succumbed to regurgitating information. I'd like to share opinions of my own and hear those of others. If you're quoting a particular topic or hi-lighting a piece of news, I'd like to hear why "you" think it's worth mentioning.

I further quote:
"there are people who care about ordering and making sense of the world, promoting good ideas, and preserving integrity in the process of online communication."

These are the individuals that I seek to make a connection with. And these are the individuals that will stand out in the ever growing space of on-line social networking.

[Scott Baradell]

Nice post, Tiffany.

[Tiffany Monhollon]

Ricardo,
Thanks for your comment! I agree that the opportunity to engage in conversation with and build relationships with people through blogging is one of the greatest values of participatory media.

And I believe that there IS room for knowledge, truth and fact online – and that's because of people who make room for it. But there are many people who don't really seem to have much regard for truth or accuracy or transparency, etc. These - even really popular blogs - sort of muddy the waters regarding what exactly the future of oncommunication is. So to me, it’s important to ask these questions so that we continually challenge ourselves to live the standards we want to see.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Ricardo -- You might find "The Cluetrain Manifesto" helpful in navigating the whole question of collective knowledge and social media. I reread it recently and I just found so much more meaning in what the authors said. Back in 2000, when I read it the first time, I did not have personal experience of it. Now I do, and I can honestly say that it is really hard to get the dynamics of blogging, for example, if you don't do it.

@Scott -- welcome to the conversation and thank you for stopping by.

@Tiffany -- the question around knowledge is good food for thought. David Weinberger in The Cluetrain Manifesto talks about the importance of working with hyperlinked people -- I agree. There is a lot of knowledge and the value is now derived from what we point to. Of course, we need to be filters to know that ;-) Good discussion, and thank you for hosting.

[Kami Huyse]

Tiffany; I was particularly drawn to your comments about what makes an expert. It has been the topic of many a heated conversation among PR and Marketing bloggers of late. The truth is that the blogosphere is like a giant op-ed page that is segmented by interest. It is mostly opinion and "thought leadership," however you define that term.

However, I want to emphasize that in every generation professionals have distinguished themselves in some way. Possibly this is the way for the current knowledge generation to distinguish themselves, by standing out in a crowded marketplace of ideas.

[Tiffany Monhollon]

Kami: The issue of expertise is such a complex one. I like your description of the blogosphere being like an op-ed page.

Whether or not this is a problem is similarly interesting. In some of my courses in grad school, we would get into huge debates about people creating their own media diets. Is this good or bad for them? Does whether or not it's "good for them" matter to them? And what does this do to society as a whole?

[Carolyn Ann]

"The future of communication really boils down to whether or not responsible, thoughtful people will govern this truly free democracy under principles that secure the future of communication while making it interesting, relevant and valuable."

Oh, I certainly hope not!

This is actually a really pet bugaboo with me: the imposition of order (responsibility, etc: "it" goes by so many names!) on free expression. I'd rather it be chaotic, unequal (as long we're all given equal opportunity to be unequal), and as meaningful or meaningless as the 'author' wants! We need a few carnivals going on - at the same time, on the same field! Not an ordered parade!

At some point, standards and expectations will evolve. They'll probably serve to quash some free expression, but I hope not! People will become known by their reputations, and networks of "trust" will develop. The Internet, after all, simply provides a new media for an old practice: that of conversation. ( ! :-) ) People will find ways, I sincerely hope, of expressing themselves, and of continuing to annoy, offend and upset others. They'll also delight, please and inspire others. What a sad, falsely pretty world it would be without the potential for disagreement!

As far experts: I continually find that ancient truisms still apply, no matter the media used for communication! People stubbornly seem to stay the same. Thankfully! (At least something is constant in this ever-changing world.)

Carolyn Ann

[Tiffany Monhollon]

Maybe "govern" wasn't the right word there. Perhaps the idea is that they will at least involve themselves in the process - that there will be, at least, some truth out there to be found (in the hypothetical world in which traditional media ceases to exist). I certainly don't want to exist in a media landscape where there is no free expression, but I don't want to live in one where there's a hopeless sense that truth and fact aren't valuable or can't be found!

[Carolyn Ann]

Ah, "truth" - that wonderfully vague, totally incomplete and resolutely defiant concept. My truth is hogwash to someone else; and all that. Simon Blackburn wrote an excellent guide to truth...

I realized what you meant a short time after writing that post, Tiffany (if I may be so bold, and familiar?) My apologies for jumping up and down so vigorously. :-)

In my defense, I can only say that I get embroiled in so many debates about free expression, and what it really is; usually with people who want to curtail some aspect of it, "for the benefit of all". Or some, similar, nonsense. I should stop and think before writing, but my knee-jerk reaction is to rush to the defense of what too many consider the indefensible. Sorry. :-)

Carolyn Ann

[Tiffany Monhollon]

Well, this conversation is a great example of that free expression at work, Carolyn Ann, so the more, the merrier, no? Now, Epistemology, that's a whole other thing all together! :)

[Carolyn Ann]

I'd agree, but I kan't spel "epistemology"... :-) Sorry: I couldn't resist! :-)

Well, the thing about these new tools - and I think that some sort of "semantic web" is required now (let alone in the future!) - is that the "rules of knowledge" (for wont of a better term) will have to be defined. It's enough for the NY Times to say "this is true"; they have a reputation to uphold, and they do so with vigor. But for, say, me? Well, I don't hold myself to the same standard: I try my level best, but I simply don't have the resources to figure out "that article I read, oh, 10 (or was it 5?) years ago."

Some sort of trust indicator is going to be essential! (Funnily enough, I worked on a project for an international bank that sort of defined this very concept. I did the math - and there was quite a bit of Lofti Zadeh's "fuzzy logic" in it! I don't know where my notes are, and the entire project was subject to a patent filing; but I'm not sure if it was ever completed.)

The basic problem is going to be: how can we tell if someone is "honest" (how are we going to define "honest" in the future? This question is probably of critical importance to marketers!) without the "normal" clues? Interpersonal interactions are one thing, and we're easily fooled there, but on-line, with little but a few words (that could be scripted?) Whos' to know?

How can we tell, as you point out, what is real, and what isn't? It's going to be a crazy world for a bit. That's one thing that's fairly sure!

Carolyn Ann

[dave]

Hi Tiffany,

I bet if you were to time travel back to 1999, and had a conversation with David, Doc, Rick and Chris, the lads would not be in favor of standards, oversight and governing - when it came to the transfer of knowledge and information. They might believe this structure to stifle the conversation.

Instead, they might hand the reader a shaker of salt and place the responsibility of dissemination upon them.

As the lads said, "We are immune to advertising. Just forget it." I believe that as internet participants, we have become immune to the title of expert. Certainly the younger generation has.