SxSWi: We Media

A little over a year ago, I wrote a post about the future of we media. In it, I stated that  many of us are joining the ranks of main stream media with regular frequency. What began as a blog started to share information, learn, publicize our business and skills, has provided a bridge to the pages of known publications.

The conversation that ensured saw the participation of experienced journalist Bruno Giussani, with a very in depth comment that I'd like to share, slightly edited, here:

Thanks for the the reminder of the absurd way established media looked at blogs just 5 years ago. I agree with pretty much everything you wrote. I actually wrote something that could fit right into your column back in 1997 already:

"The role of the journalist is changing into a more central figure, a mediator. He directs traffic, explores, becomes a facilitator of discussions. His new power will depend on his ability to animate a group of people, to develop methods and means to enliven the community, to organize information-gathering and use with the participation of the members of the community."

Truth is, we're in an era of hybridization of media, and that goes two-ways. Newspapers and magazines and broadcasters have been opening up to everything form blogging to crowdsourcing. Conversely, many blogs have become almost traditional media (in terms of business model and structure -- take Gawker, or DailyKos, or TalkingPointMemo: they have more flexibility and smaller overhead, but they're basically traditional publishers) and it's telling that of the three examples you mention, David and Steve work for communication firms and John is a consultant and speaker, i.e., they derive their paycheck from sources other than journalism. They do "journalism on the side", including their columns for AdAge etc.

Those are great additions to the conversation, but aren't necessarily great additions to journalism, in particular to the journalism that a democracy needs to function -- long reporting, researching, travelling, taking risks, exposing corruption and lies, going up against established powers, etc.

Sure, everybody can make a long list of examples of bloggers doing some of this work (from the Dan Rather story to the AG scandal to local happenings) and a similarly long list of established media with lots of resources screwing it up (NYT on Iraq, just to mention one). But still the key question remains: how will the necessary journalism be organized and be paid for in the future? The best journalism on TV today is either paid for by the public through mandatory fees (BBC) or paid for by philanthropic and corporate-social-responsibility money (Bill Moyers on PBS): is that the model of the future?

A second caveat is: while all you write applies perfectly to the US media landscape, it doesn't necessarily apply to the rest of the world, where media habits, market structures, and roles are different. In many African countries, the best journalism today is often done by bloggers -- because they have a space for freedom that newspapers don't (it's easier to shut down a printing plant: read the difficulties Andrew Mwenda encountered trying to print his newspaper).

In Europe, newspapers' and magazines' sites dominate the online space and conversation (with the possible exception of Italy, where Beppe Grillo has emerged as a major political force, mostly because television news has turned into irrelevant political banter and most newspapers are going the same way).

In his last post (for a while), Bruno stated he was suspending his blog, because "after more than three years and more than 1000 posts, I no longer find blogging a satisfactory instrument for organizing my thoughts, keeping track of ideas, trends and interesting novelties, and engaging in a conversation with readers and friends."

Interestingly, my response to his comment read (slightly edited to fit this context):

This line in your 1997 article was particularly stimulating to my thought process:

"By redefining the way we think and write, this new structure redefines all of our culture. I agree with New York sociologist Neil Postman that

New technologies alter the structure of our interests: the things we think about. They alter the character of our symbols: the things we think with. And they alter the nature of community: the arena in which thoughts develop."

We are probably starting to think liquid as PR and social media consultant Geoff Livingston defined it. You ended with:

"So as a journalist what I believe our first and most urgent task ahead is to create the appropriate language to describe - thus to understand - the digital revolution. Recognizing that it is not only about microprocessors and fiber optic cable, but above all about brains connecting to other brains, about collective intelligence. A human, political and cultural endeavor."

If you think about where you are today vs. where you started from when you began publishing content, you will probably find that you've moved up the hierarchy of needs to self-esteem and, potentially, self-actualization. The new technologies at our disposal have altered the structure of our interests.

The things we think with alter what we can do. Today at SxSWi people are recording podcasts, videos and taking notes to document the event. Potentially, there will be outcomes, things will happen as a result of contributions to the community. Even if you're on Twitter reading the reports and following the links to blog posts, you still have the opportunity to participate in the event and news.

We might be media, but - and it's a big one - we are not journalists. I'm a classically trained linguist with a passion for learning and making ideas happen and deep experience in marketing communications. I took journalism classes, and I probably am a good addition to the conversation. However, I'm not the kind of journalist Bruno describes.

Who is going to pick up the tab for that kind of journalism? That remains very much the open question at the other end of the "paid to write" spectrum. Why it matters should be quite transparent. Or maybe it isn't. What's your take? 

[image: I met Amy Jo Kim at the Fast Company Community @ Work event]

Comments

[Adam Singer]

"Who is going to pick up the tab for that kind of journalism?"

There is no way to answer that.

We can speculate all day, but Clay Shirky put it rather well at his blog....

from:
http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/

"I don’t know. Nobody knows. We’re collectively living through 1500, when it’s easier to see what’s broken than what will replace it. The internet turns 40 this fall. Access by the general public is less than half that age. Web use, as a normal part of life for a majority of the developed world, is less than half that age. We just got here. Even the revolutionaries can’t predict what will happen."

[Valeria Maltoni]

I shared that very post via O'Reilly today on Twitter - great minds think alike!

And Shirky was speaking at SxSW today. I don't think that anyone can guess or imagine what will be, but it's interesting to pursue avenues we may see as likely today.

Thank you for adding to the conversation.

[Bruno Giussani]

Valeria, thank you for digging out those old truths and decade-old quotes, and glad you find them still relevant. Yes, being "media" and being "journalists" is not the same thing. And as Clay points out, there will not be a single model going forward, there will be many, and all in flux. Steve Johnson also added some interesting elements at SWSX through his "old growth" metaphor (http://www.stevenberlinjohnson.com/2009/03/the-following-is-a-speech-i-gave-yesterday-at-the-south-by-southwest-interactive-festival-in-austiniif-you-happened-to-being.html ) although he seems to underplay the role of journalism for the functioning of a democratic system. We are in the middle of a fundamental transformation, and we are going to find in many places hybrid structures and overlapping models and will have to learn to live with that.
Thank you. BG

[Valeria Maltoni]

Thank you, Bruno.I look forward to learning more about your current and future projects. I do like hybrid structures. I wonder if this is the same kind of transformation corporations will undergo.