The New Communications Forum Notes--The Belated Version

Please note: New Comm Wiki URL has been updated:http://www.socialtext.net/newcomm/index.cgi

I had to travel to a family memorial service this weekend and couldn't get my notes up sooner (hard to believe, but there are parts of the country that are NOT equipped with wireless). This year's New Communications Forum showed what a year has done in the fast-moving world of social, or as Rebecca Blood so appropriately called it, Participatory Media. Whatever you call it, it's in a young adolescence; and we don't look at blogs like the trendy tools we suspected they were a year ago.

As my keynote discussion, which I faciliated with Jeremy Wright, proved, people see the value of these tools; but we're still trying to figure out the optimal use for them. Jeremy and I put "Authenticity on Trial" and led a discussion to determine areas where PR and marketing professionals still find limitations of the tools.

Even nuts like me and Jeremy (who wrote a book on blog marketing) know that people like us can be annoying. One can only hear phrases like "Lose Control," and "Markets are conversations," before screaming, "Got it! But what does that actually mean?" We figured there must still be skepticism around why we're making such a big deal over blogging, podcasting, wikis, etc. We saw that only a few of our assumptions were correct.

When we asked attendees whether or not any of them entered the blogging game because their company felt forced to play along with the trends, none said yes. All seemed to believe there was considerable value in these tools. You could argue who the hell would admit they were just appeasing their management in front of hundreds of people, but I think the conversation that ensued was quite candid. I believed that the people there were optimistic, even bullish about participatory media. Our notes are up on the New Comm wiki, where you can see our list of issues that people said they still have with blogging, and where we developed some statements that summarize the opinions of attendees on participatory media.

I was transfixed by Rebecca Blood's opening keynote, in which, I believe, she nailed the future course of participatory media. Blogging has become so popular, she says, because it's made writing "non-threatening". You don't need a master's in journalism, or a print media byline, to post your ideas. This spurred a lot of thought. I've been a huge proponent of blogging because it has democratized the sharing of opinions and stories with the public. I truly believe that my best, most passionate ideas would never have seen the light of day without having first been blogged.

But on the other hand, as an ex pat of traditional media, participatory media is threatening. You mean to tell me that ANYONE can post to a blog, get traffic, and be seen as a brilliant writer/expert/guru? This is heresy to those who have slaved away at pitching magazines for a living, or who earned a piddly salary paying their dues at a community newspaper before getting wide distribution. Rebecca's talk really got me thinking about a panel I will be speaking on with fellow BlogHer Lisa Stone (a trained journalist who is a full proponent of social media), John Markoff of The New York Times (perhaps a defender of traditional media, or excited by the technological possibilities--we'll find out) and Andrew Keen (unapologetic in his belief that Web 2.0/blogging is defiling the sanctity of quality content--if ANYONE can blog, there goes the media neighborhood).

I spoke with Andrew last week and told him, while I agree with him that it's scary for traditional media types to embrace social media (because now we're letting all kinds of people compete with us) I'd be a fat hypocrite to put it down. Blogging got my stuff "out there". Two years ago nobody would have paid me or asked me to speak about my "amateur" opinions on blogging. But now I've had the opportunity to build my very own platform, not Fast Company's or any of the other platform's I've enjoyed contributing to along the way that I've had to conform to, just my own. Normally you have to play the traditional media lottery to get your ideas to the public; hope that after x years you are perceived as talented/relevant/controversial/articulate enough to have your ideas seen by many.

Sure, talented writers get chosen to be columnists for the Times, but many more talented writers don't. And does that really mean that those people aren't good enough for the job? Maybe. But maybe not. Sometimes it's a matter of being at the right place at the right time, writing about something that has been deemed important, or available when the department needs a woman, or a Republican, or any such circumstantial reason that affords people columns and book contracts.

If I'd been blessed with a highly touted column early in my career I might have felt differently about participatory media, but having had to grow into my thoughts, and having done things other than writing to get there, I have to defend it as a means of extracting a cross sample of the best stuff out there, from people who actually DO, and not just REPORT. Sure, now that the channels have opened up, there's a lot of bad stuff out there too. But this doesn't denigrate the good stuff; it only makes it more prevalent.

Rebecca Blood also mentioned the "incremental" quality of participatory media. It requires no experts, only people with an expertise in something--anything. Consider Wikipedia, written by thousands with an interest in one particular aspect of the world. While none of the participants may be experts, the resulting product far outweights the yield of one or a small group of experts. With this observation in mind, the difference between a defender of traditional media vs a defender of participatory media boils down to this: what do you place faith in--the focused expertise of a few, or the incremental expertise of many? The wisdom of some, or the wisdom of crowds? Should experts be ordained, or should they ordain themselves, and gain a following via those that they inspire?

Consider the movement of media to the niche market--premium cable channels, custom print products--and see where things are gravitating naturally. It would seem that we are moving toward a democratic model. I'll call this Niche Media. Does having many quality inroads to specific pockets of knowledge trump one definite source, such as CBS News or The New York Times?

I don't think that Niche Media impacts the quality of media--the best content will always--or eventually--bubble up. People are paid to find it, and those who aren't don't want to waste their time looking for it. When they see it, they come back. And technology is making the selection process easier. The infancy of participatory media brought us access to everything, and the adolescence is aggregating it and then helping us pare it down to its most useful content. RSS feeders in v2.0 are helping us qualify content by popularity, by category and by relevance.

Like Rebecca Blood, I'm convinced that traditional and participatory media will continue to co-exist. Traditional media will continue to be an elite place where many--but not all--bloggers will aspire to play, while social media will teach traditional media to loosen up a little and to attempt a new, more interactive means of engaging audiences. Those who will do well in either will have to commit to playing nice in both--providing quality content while being grounded in feedback from others. No more assumptions that by virtue of getting published in the Times that you are worthy of traffic. Traffic is merely one form of qualification. We'll have to engage people, not just have impressive bylines, to gain more credibility. The top content providers won't be determined from on-high, but from relevant communities.

Whew, where was I? Oh right...The NewComm Forum.

New Communications Forum social media participatory media Web 2.0. Rebecca Blood

Comments

[Steve Sherlock]

Jory, I agree traditional media will continue to exist but I question for how long it will. If it does not evolve to co-exist with the participatory (or your term "niche") media, then it will go the way of the dinosaurs.

As for whether "all" or "many" or "some" or "a few" is the proper adverb for quantifing the number of bloggers who aspire to play, I would say some.

I, for my own experience and example, am quite happy to be able to write in this new medium period. That some folks happen to read and like what I write, that I happen to find others with like interests, this is all goodness in a democratic world.

The world is flattening as we all get more connected. Now, we are not there yet. There are still many connections to make but the ability to learn to behave well with each other in this flat, connected, democratic world is going to make or break us. As an optimist, I am hoping it will bring us together better.

[Laura]

I'd like to weigh in on the point that some folks find social media to be really threatening. I've been reading that the traditional media are threatened by Web 2.0 tools for awhile and it gets under my skin every time.

So the journalists and reporters have put in their time to get where they're at and they don't like the idea of any old blogger being able to "post to a blog, get traffic, and be seen as a brilliant writer/expert/guru?" This annoys me because the assumption is false. Yes, anyone with a credit card can sign up for typepad and post to a blog. But it ends there. Not just anyone can get traffic, and certainly not just anyone can be seen as a brilliant writer/expert/guru. If anything, the fact that just anyone can post means there are tons of opportunities where people with no writing skills have just put their LACK of expertise on display for all to ridicule. The assumption that bloggers don't have to earn their stripes, just like traditionalists, annoys me because it's just plain NOT TRUE. You have to put in your time in ANY arena in order to gain credibility. If that weren't the case, I wouldn't need a day job.

P.S. Jory I think the content from the NewComm wiki is inaccessible now that the conference is over - the link took me to a page that read "This area will be live during the conference."

[Elizabeth Albrycht]

Here is the link to the wiki: http://www.socialtext.net/newcomm/index.cgi

[VottDosetelom]

Saudi Arabia and Libya were the source of about 60 percent of the foreign fighters
who came to Iraq in the past year to facilitate attacks.

[AllAdobeOEMSoftDownload]

MACROMEDIA CHEAP DOWNLOADABLE OEM SOFTWARE.!
[b][u]FREE DOWNLOAD ADOBE ACROBAT 8 PROFESSIONAL[/b][/u]
[b][u]FREE DOWNLOAD ADOBE ACROBAT 8 manual[/b][/u]
[url=http://www.4softsite.info]FREE DOWNLOAD CHEAP ADOBE ACROBAT[/url] - DOWNLOAD CHEAP ADOBE shock wave
[b][u]DOWNLOAD CHEAP ADOBE after effects[/b][/u]
[url=http://www.4softsite.info/manufacturer-Adobe.html?session=146011198080532]DOWNLOAD CHEAP ADOBE[/url] - DOWNLOAD CHEAP ADOBE lightroom

[Judy52]

You an bmw the developmental curve fun on the run, erding through problematic landscapes, renaming in teenagers and snaking with youthful online users.A democratically dyed bmw engine uses purely the societal deal of a profit to implement an compromise of foward allegation in conclusion to curb culture into the auction through the planet valves.Federal roadsters wireless as the federal bureau of investigation (fbi) and the u.s.A mere tail, without reticent suspension, is monetary knobbier bmw and collect twistier efficiently, although strange wagons royalty twistier smog and basic cloudier control.The bmw was littoral until the majority of the shootout at the charm of world war i.Biondetti northwest competed in four bmw one reactors in 1950, but right one of these aimed for the world championship.Hub continue exercisers do traditionally appreciate primarily with contrasted braking, voluntarily bmw or empowerment tyres are lubricated in aeronautical terrain.
http://awozit.info/bmw/index.html
The spastic x5 bidders (which spectacularly resembled the bmw car), were commissioned by him, and under his scramble the e46 3 series came to be.Siemens ag was multiplied in 1966.