Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Online news genres & the bloody blogs

Abstract:

Unlike the traditional print and broadcasting media, which were and still are shaped by the nation’s law makers, the Internet has been fashioned and shaped first by scientists, then internet luminaries and activists and now by many people. This distinctive attribute has underpinned the course of the Internet and set the stage for the Internet to become a remarkable social technology.

In this paper I will discuss how news of the Internet is presented and received, and the effect that styles of reporting have on popular understanding of the “net”. To appreciate the net’s role and the effect it has and likely to have in the future I will discuss some of the communication genres of the Internet as well as how the society is engaging the Internet in the process of collection, pluralisation and diffusion of news and information


Society and the need for news:

There’s a persistent view that high tech is constantly ahead of the society and it takes time before the society catches up with new technology and applications. However, it is the other way around; it is the technology that lags behind the societal needs and expectations. It takes time for the technologists to catch up with the wants and the needs of people and deliver mature technological solutions. Society’s demand for change and newness thus, is always ahead of whatever is current or new. The moment a system or a technical gadget meets people’s expectations – providing it is also affordable - its acceptance becomes a natural thing. There’s nothing remarkable about the fast acceptance of the Internet once it has enabled people to do what they always longed for; freely engage in all kinds of interactions, news making and modes of expressions and all these from the comfort of their own environment.

Often human desires remain unfulfilled for a prolonged period especially where people have little influence over the change. This is usually the case with institutional structures which are controlled by few and whose interests are not in tandem with the society’s interests. Traditional media is one such institution which is slow to evolve yet for centuries it set the tone and the scope of its news, information, education, and entertainment genres. The traditional media has been at the vanguard of adoption of new information and news production technologies for as long as it met its production frame. It has been slow, however, in adopting bi-directional interactive technologies to engage with its audiences. Louise Sito, publisher and editor of Spanish tabloid Hoy once lamented "We were all, as an industry, asleep at the wheel. While we were trying to protect markets...our customers changed dramatically, and we have not adapted to the marketplace gracefully."

Migration of news audience:

Despite the fact that newspaper readership has been in decline for over three decades (The Readership Institute – Impact Study), the traditional media has been slow to engage with its readers. The traditional “few to many” communication topology suited the news makers; it was highly profitable for them to control the content and context bias. The Internet, however, has challenged the stoic print, radio and TV media. It has delivered something people always longed for; having an input into the news- making, news-breaking and selective news-focus. A report by The Pew Research Center titled “Internet Sapping Broadcast News Audience” warns: “Traditional news outlets are feeling the impact of two distinct and powerful trends. Internet news has not only arrived, it is attracting key segments of the national audience. At the same time, growing numbers of Americans are losing the news habit. ... And more Americans than ever say they watch the news with a remote control in hand, ready to dispatch uninteresting stories.” When it comes to the print media’s news genre the situation is not any brighter. Louise Sito: "Look at most of the newspapers,...They are boring! They are boring! What are we doing to attract new readers to a product that competes with the 24/7 coverage of news on the electronic media? We have to evolve into something that has more analysis, has more relevancy, has more educational punch to it, has more fun....“ The Internet has developed its own dynamism of blended genres ranging from headline news and sharp/short news snippets to the classic in-depth coverage on any subject of interest. This blend of news genres all on a single web site or even on a single web page is appealing to broad news readership ranging from an occasional peruser of news headlines to professionals, intellectuals and college graduates with zest for in-depth news.


Interaction and Communication genres:

The Internet with its web of hyperlinks to any bit of news coupled with its capability to connect people in real-time and asynchronously has made it possible for people to engage with the news makers. Moreover, the Internet has evolved into a news/media outlet where anybody who wishes to be, can be a publisher, an editor and a producer of anything. More than that; with pod-casting technology virtually anybody can be a broadcaster too. The Internet is one unique medium, which is capable of facilitating most of the human communication genres of monologues, dialogues, polyogues and a hybrid of any or all of these genres. This hybrid of genres is comprehensively evident throughout the myriad of cyber communities, individual portals, web pages and blogs as well as through supplementary communication, news gathering and news following applications and mediums. People are the news makers! People extract, create and share content of their specific interest and with others like never befor in the history of human communication. They engage with fellow netizens in interpretation, analysis and dissemination of the news, reviews, truths and lies. Netizens employ various genres of communication such as: essays, articles, arguments, debates, political discourses and story telling including such pop culture genres as fantasy, flirtation as well as myths and naïve and utopian political chills. Through this process of communication, I have observed with interest how many have became not only skilled news finders but also de-facto news makers, publishers and editors by embedding their spin and perceptions into the news; often completely distorting the facts, other times exaggerating them and other times amplifying important details otherwise unnoticed by others. Indeed the spectrum of genres employed is broad. However the online communication and presentation skills determined the extent of engagement of the audience. Some succeed spectacularly and spawned both broad and deep response from many. Others scream and yell, yet they remain unheared. In the final analysis as potent the Internet technology is, the extent of engagement always depends on the skill of the communicator rather than on the content itself. The Internet provides many communication tools and genres so people can augment or amplify their message such as: mind maps, audio/visual sensation, online interactive games, P2P content sharing, synchronous and asynchronous communication, animations, blogs, personal web pages and portals. Those who can express best their personal flair and charisma are more successful in drawing others into their sphere of interest and influence.


Blogs – The New Media:

The Internet’s capability to record every bit of news, information and chatter coupled with its powerful search, filtering and news following technologies made it easy for people to find, extract and publish news. Moreover, the Internet has enabled both professional journalists and amateurs to interweave the original news with their own spins and opinions, in effect creating new, uniquely Internet news genre. Blogs are one of the finest examples of such a news genre. Naturally, intensive pluralization of news often results in indiscernible noise. Such “noise” genres, are not uncommon in real life; town hall meetings, mass gatherings, etc.; however, due to the spatial nature of such gatherings, once the audience is dispersed the environment together with its content and context is lost irrecoverably or at least cannot be re-created faithfully. With the Internet, spatial constraints do not play a significant role, thus the blog noises may be revisited and re-dressed many times. It is not difficult to re-create or maintain blogs and re-assemble the original audience or engage new entrants who may be interested in the subject. Eventually, through the process of content filtering and attrition of boring or incoherent authors it possible to make sense out of seemingly indiscernible noise; spawning new discourses, discussion threads or engender an avalanche of new blogs. What makes blogs such an engaging news media is that they are immediate, spontaneous and they are not constrained by rules of the conventional news genres which often perceived to be boring and dull. Blogs are especially great serendipity media, as some students have also discovered.

Conclusion:

“The question arises from the groundswell of legitimate media criticism that newspaper journalists have lost touch with their audiences -- that they write for their institutional sources and their peers rather than for fellow citizens; that they focus on inside baseball rather than public problems; that they emphasize political style and strategy rather than the substance and impact of policy proposals; that, in a desperate quest to produce what they perceive readers "want," they fail to produce what readers need to participate in democracy.” (Tim Porter)

Perhaps the most striking aspect of the Internet as a social media is that not since the Socialist revolutions of Europe (1848-1851) and the American Civil War (1861-1865), the traditional media have failed to provide a real forum for the citizens to participate in the shaping of their own democracies. With the Internet’s marvelously unregulated construct the Internet has grown not only to become a technological marvel but even more impressively it has grown into an unrestrained social media. The citizens finally have at their disposal a medium which, if they wished, they could use to actively participate in the shaping of their democracies.

Yet despite clear advice from some seasoned news men and the sight of dead newspapers littering the media road, some are still having hard time to come to grips with the impact of the Internet as a news service. They may go a distance, recognize a part of the problem but then they fall into a wailing pit. The following excerpt from the Sydney Morning Herald demonstrates this: “The world is changing, and clearly the demand for our product is not as high as it once was," Lynn Dickerson, publisher and president of The Modesto Bee, said at a panel at the Associated Press Managing Editors annual conference examining the challenges newspapers face. "I still think we're the last collective effort for democracy," she said. "We've got to survive, and we've got to succeed."

"At the same time, I'm trying to reach younger readers. I'm trying to do online. I'm trying to do multimedia," she said. "I'm trying to do a lot more, and I've got a lot less in terms of staff resources. And I've got a smaller newshole. I'm trying to figure it out."

Lynn Dickerson has failed to realize that the traditional media has long ceased to be the bastion for democracy. This failure is one of the chief barriers on the road to recovery. Reaching out to audience without listening, understanding and engaging with the audience, is a trivial pursuit.

Tim Porter, a seasoned news paper man has put it this way in his First Draft blogticle Journalism by Every Means Necessary:
“These days, when someone from a newspaper or a journalism school asks me to join a panel about the future of journalism or address the question of why a newspaper should have blogs, my inner response is a scream: You are slipping into irrelevance! You have an analog product in a digital world! Your economic platform is dying! You must do something! Now, go read my stuff for the last two years, and Jarvis and Rosen and Yelvington and Thompson and Sands and Robinson and the Readership Institute. Then let's talk.”
=====================================

References:

Louise Sito, Tim Porter(2005). "Dismantling the Language Barrier." American Journalism Review(62).
The Readership Institute – Impact Study, Human synergistics / center for applied research, i. (2000). Readership Institute - Impact Study. Culture Report: A Profile of the Impact Newspapers and Their Departments. J. 2000. Arlington, Human Synergistics/Center for Applied Research, Inc.: 144.
Porter, T
. (2005) First Draft Blog “Journalism by Every Means Necessary
Porter, T. (2005) Using Journalism, Not Stenography to Reconnect with Readers: A Guest Letter

Bibliography:
Baker, S. (2005). "Newspapers in trouble with youth? How about TV?" BusinessWeek Online.
Barr, J. (2005). Jeff Barr's Blog. Jeff Barr. USA, Sindic8.com.

Bowman, J. (2004). "Rhetorical recklessness." The New Criterion 23: 58.
The absence of any shame in self-contradiction among our journalistic and political controversialists today is a powerful indication that they only expect to be heard by the already-persuaded. In other words, communication has ceased.

Chaney, P. (2005). "Post Revolution Blogging." All Business.
Cronin, D. B. (2005). Dean's Notes: BLOG: see also Bathetically Ludicrous Online Gibberish. SLIS News. USA, SLIS News.
Genova, J. (2005). Bloggers Morph to Road Warriors. Jane Genova. USA, Jane Genova.
Genova, J. (2005). Blogging - Post-Revolution. Jane Genova. USA, Jane Genova.
Grave, D. (2005). Communication Nation. USA, Dave Grave.
Lipman, H. K. a. S. (2005) The New Criterion Volume, DOI:
Manjoo, F. (2002). "Blah, Blah, Blah and Blog." Wired News.
Reynolds, G. H. (2002). "A Technological Reformation." Tech Central Station.

Monday, August 07, 2006

Incongruent Life 2006

This year so far has been particularly difficult and trying; yet also one of the most profitable. I have completed my 2nd masters, however the most valuable lessons I have learned and experiences I have acquired had little to do with the academic knowledge or experiences gained during and through acerbic debates. I have learned a different set of values:

I have learnt to cope with many difficulties, endure and overcome trappings, pitfalls and pain of studying under stress. I have learned to collaborate with “virtual” people I’ve never met before nor will ever meet. Sadly, my last semester turned out to be rather barren when it came to collaboration. However, I attribute this to the fact that my fellow master graduating students in their last throws of study focused on crossing into the light at the end of a long and hostile tunnel. What I found particularly difficult to be is that for the 1st time I did not have a single student who shared my interest in my research project - Cognitive Information Continuum Model (C-ICM).

However, let this be understood correctly, I blame no one for this since my research project was way off this planet.

I have learned that individually conceived projects are far more difficult than pre-defined or parameterized projects. However, the real value of being off this planet has been the realization that there's more to life than:

  • pursuing complex concepts and esoteric theories
  • student life
  • intellectual pursuits of one’s own mind and
  • there’s more to relationships than committing oneself entirely to books and the works of others, regardless how noble or clever or engaging the authors and their works may be.

I have learned that Virtual is Real yet without flesh it is inanimate. Flesh is more real than virtual, and that physical affection is more sentient than even the most sensual virtual sensation.

I have learned that event the entire supercomputer grid with all its AI, neural networks and digitized knowledge does not come even close to a child’s smile or giggle or my a twinkle in my wife’s eyes.

During my last semester I have never slept so little in my life yet dreamed so much. I have never mourned the death of a virtual person or even a demise of entire virtual communities, yet I cried my eyes dry when a loved one passed away. I have learned that I have been quicker to get on the net than get on with my family, thus I have lost far more than I gained.

I have met some wonderful people both students – from my classes and from classes of other courses - and have built a few enduring relationships which stretch far beyond the confines and domains of the virtual class rooms.

I have learned that nearly all of my mishaps were self inflicted and have no one to blame for them. I had to fight my own demons because I did not notice the love, affection and protection of those who cared.

I have learned that the Internet stores vast amount of information and most of it is totally useless. The life span of any knowledge on the net is short. However, I also learned that without the Internet and the WWW, we would literally fight more physical wars instead of virtual. Without the Internet and the WWW communities would be poorer in every respect.

I have learned that despite much junk and pollution, the Internet is the richest repository of all sorts of wonderful things and I have learned how to find them without getting bogged down in the deluge of cyber gunk.

I have learned how little I know, yet today I know more than I knew when I began my sojourn with Internet Studies.

I have learned that kindness worth more than clinical intellect and that one trait that distinguishes us from machine is that we can make mistakes; machines are just too dumb for that.

I have learned to appreciate my teachers, yet I have not thanked them enough, so I may as well take this opportunity to thank at least Dr. Helen Merrick, who’s been one of the kindest academics I’ve ever met and whose care helped me through to the finish line of this endurance run.

Thank you Helen.

Thursday, May 18, 2006

Who knows you?

There was time when what one knew mattered, indeed mattered much. Somehow the paradigm has changed to: "it's not what you know but who you know that matters" stupid. Well in this age of information deluge and short attention span the newest paradigm is "it's neither what you know nor who you know, but who knows You", stupid! Celebrities get appointed as ambassadors of the UN and the mediocre busybody buffoons get promotions. The quiet achievers and the productive personnel go on unnoticed. Naturally there are exceptions to this paradigm.

Saturday, May 06, 2006

Mediocrity in your Face

“We realize that the low expectations of our culture, of our community of artists, even, instill complacency in us. We look at our work and unconsciously use a scale to evaluate it that is based on the mediocrity and lack of vision in our culture. If we can't work shoulder by shoulder with great people, we should take time to remove ourselves, to live in a kind of solitude where our standards can become the standards of our own passion, of our own souls.”
by Alex Cox of Italy Journal

The fundamental problem with the criticism of mediocrity is that it expects the mediocre to remove themselves from the positions of leadership and influence; this is a naive proposition. Such proposition affords the mediocre the luxury of pointing their finger towards the more capable.

The curse of the mediocrity is that the mediocrity’s worst and weakest can turn the talented against themselves. The more mediocrity is pervasive the more talented people suck up to it; if you can’t beat it, join it. “Team spirit” is one of mediocrity’s catch cries and spiritual strongholds for it best serves the mediocre. Understand me right. I’m not against team work or team structures. It is the spiritual notion of team that suppresses the blossoming of the talent. Too often we see organizational grand slogans like: “Innovation & fresh ideas!”. What they really demand, however, is fresh mediocrity while promoting those with the most insatiable appetite for mediocrity. The extent of mediocrity saturation in organisations - both governmen & private sectors - is amazing.

What’s than the solution, is there one?

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Knowledge is Power or is it?

Over the last decade knowledge has become the principal value driver in every economy. Despite this, most managers, still have not learned how to harness knowledge. Why? There are 4 ways to get into a position of power and in the following order of precedence:

  1. By manipulation, including skillful ignorance and Machiavellian tactics
  2. By inheritance
  3. By accident
  4. Through knowledge, know-how, skill & experience

Having acquired some power the mediocre (the 1st 3 precedences) will raise the shields of ignorance to guard his/her position. It is mediocrity not stupidity which costs organizations and their stakeholders dearly! Someone said: "Knowledge is expensive but so is stupidity" so the mediocre managers have shut out the knowledge.

It is not the stupidity we need to be concerned about but about the monumental mediocrity which has permiated much of the middle and upper layers of management.

Mediocrity is far behind ability and scantily ahead of stupidity

Recently I've read the blogs worth reading:
Communication Nation
Jane Genova
Mathemagenic

Thursday, March 02, 2006

Knowledge Management Failure

Apparently the vast majority of KM systems fail. Many IT & KM experts and managers who claim to know what KM is all about have written countless articles, produced huge volumes of white papers and case studies, all eager to explain the causes of such failures. If they do understand the ills and the reasons for the ills of KM systems, than why can’t they fix the problems? Or is it because their finger prints are all over the failed KM systems?

I submit that KM systems which have failed have had little to do with Knowledge. In other words the systems which so comprehensively failed were not KM systems at all. They were re-branded ordinary data, information and document management systems. What has failed is the populist KM thinking paradigm. To squeeze more sales out of their ordinary data & document management systems, some vendors stick such “sexy” tags on their ordinary offerings like:

Information Knowledge System – IKS, which resembles more a plain, flat or hierarchical repository of outdated information, which should be labeled as junk information. Why? Because it consumes a lot of resources, it does not stimulate seriously creative thinking; in short, from useful Knowledge perspective its usefulness is limited. In fact it would be more profitable not having such system at all.

Knowledge Management Tools - KMT. A tool set which promises to decide for the user what is relevant for the user. Its decision is based on the user’s query or worst; user's profile. Implicitly these tools are promising to relive users from thinking; an attractive proposition for the simpleton and the mediocre for whom thinking is torment. The same grandiose "benefits" were promoted and promised for years by now discredited CASE tools and DSS/EIS systems. Now these things are called KMT.

Dynamic Knowledge Systems - DKS - little more than intranet based glorified electronic discussion boards or portals facilitating broad discussions, topics and interests. It is this "dynamism" of many participants with broadest topics and interests that promise to elicit on-demand tacit knowledge and convert it into an explicit knowledge and then codify and organize this knowledge into a repository of explicit knowledge. In reality most – not all - DK Systems are just feeders of more low grade information to IKS and KMT.

The list is endless. Sadly, KM label has become a fashionable fad and a corruption of knowledge application practice.

The fundamental problem with various so called KM systems is that they are implying that thinking is a difficult and daunting process, whilst suggesting that managers have more important things to do than think or could spend their corporate time on better things than "wrecking" their grey matter. The prompters of KM systems are offering a relief from such "torturous" pursuits as thinking; such elixir does appeal to the mediocrity.

Few are blessed with serious, specifically relevant knowledge or know-how. Any system which facilitates overly broad participation will inextricably bury any expert knowledge under a pile of low value chatter. I am persuaded that for valuable ideas & thoughts to produce innovation there need to be a highly afferent and efferent system capable of synthesizing powerful multidimensional analytical databases with the know-how of subject matter experts, the imagination of visionaries and the creative mind of innovators who do not fret from the challenge of thinking.

So is there such thing as successful KM and can it ever reach a consistent and higher rate of successful implementation? Yes to both questions for as long as the cognitive dimension of knowledge, which steams from the cognitive faculty of the mind, is at the core of Knowledge System. I'm reluctant to use the KM term for obvious reasons, so instead I'm using Knowledge Systems (KS), and where system does not mean technology only.

The fundamental pre-conditions to successful knowledge diffusion are:

  • Do not manage knowledge; manage knowledgeable people.
  • Sophisticated database technology is a critical component of a working KS, however, only if it is synthesized with human knowledge.
  • Knowledgeable people love technology. Without it knowledge diffusion would be inefficient and less effective and ultimately would compel high value knowledge workers to gravitate to places with high concentration of high quality technology.
  • The creators of knowledge are the best diffusors of knowledge and emanate from the same mind. The role of management and Knowledge Manager in particular is to encourage this dual process of knowledge creation and diffusion.
  • Focus on elicitation of USEFUL / EXPERT Knowledge only!
  • Match technology's sophistication level to people's cognition level. If people's cognition is low, question leaders' ability; if need be replace them with capable people & begin building a viable Knowledge System.
  • Elevate cognitive excellence above mediocrity.

Those enterprises, which are not captive to the mediocre leadership, will excel spectacularly.

Bill Ives: "I have found the key differentiator in KM success to be the quality of leadership and not the quality of KM solution design or technology. I have seen implementations with acceptable designs flourish under the right leadership and brilliant “next generation” KM designs flounder under poor leadership." - Portals and KM

Knowledge should be organisation's most potent assets in its assets portfolio. Those organisations where knowledge isn't the most valued asset are facing a bleak future; they'll become either an easy takeover "prey", or they'll die a cruel death.