Posts
With the release of News Ltd's Future of journalism 'discussion' I've submitted a 'Your view' to the site which may, or may not, be published at some point in the future.
On the basis that traditional media is no longer the gatekeeper for participation in public debate I have posted my submission below.
I see a lot of the debate over traditional media relevancy and business models being very 'fiddling on the edges' stuff, attempting to use technical or legal barriers (such as copyright) to preserve an industrial era view of media which media consumers, now also media producers, are rejecting in droves.
Today any individual or organisation can create and maintain its own media platform capable of reaching 95% of Australians, and over 2 billion people worldwide.
The Internet, by merely existing, allows entrepreneurs and agile organisations to question all previous assumptions about the collection, collation, filtering, distribution and monetization of content. As a global playing field, the importance of geographic boundaries has been further diminished.
Being agile, efficient and effective is no longer sufficient. Organisations must be prepared to destroy and reconstruct themselves under entirely different models to remain competitive and relevant.
The jury is still very much out as to whether traditional newspapers, radio and television media organisations will be able to do this before they see a substantial amount of their profitability dry up.
My submission:
It is no surprise that people who work in traditional media, who have a financial and emotional stake in its future, are supportive of their organisation’s future (provided they are agile, efficient and effective).
I can see expert blacksmiths believing the same with the arrival of mass-produced cars and metalwork.
However what those beholden to traditional media cannot see is the viewpoint from the outside world.
Yes access to information is a requirement for liberal democracies. Yes quality news is a tool used to stabilize societies and promote understanding.
However there is no law of nature that states that profitability must be at the root of quality news coverage and reporting. Nor is there a causal link between professional journalism and professional news reporting – journalists, as humans, are as prone to reflecting their own biases as others and, even when trained to be objective, are at the mercy of sub-editors (where they still exist), editors and the overall political ambitions of for-profit media concerns.
Now I am not saying that government-run media (with no profit objective) is the answer. These systems bring their own control and bias issues, they still need cash and still have oversight from humans who may be influenced by political views.
Nor am I saying that for-profit, or even not-for-profit independent media outlets do not have a future. They do.
However the vast expansion in expressive capability that has been realized through the Internet has offered a second model to news gathering and reporting that will seriously challenge the biases of distribution systems with tacked on news collection and reporting facilities.
There is no reason to assume that industrial news services will continue to be the leading players in the media market – certainly the impact of the web on other industrial era centralised industries has been profound. When the means of production and distribution are diversified, some necessary changes and adaptation is required.
However those who have financial and emotional connection to the old models, while the most prolific commenters on new models, are not the gatekeepers to these new media forms, nor are they objective and impartial observers, able to assess the changes without bias.
I would challenge News Ltd and all other industrial-era news industry players to look outside themselves and their orbits (bloggers who are, in effect, news people) to the broader changes occurring in society.
We need to consider new models – perhaps the disaggregation of news collection and distribution, creating an open market for people to write news, have it submitted to, paid for and distributed by strong distribution channels, or for citizens (who are now all journalists, so we can drop the ‘citizen journalist’ tag) to be paid based on views, likes and reputation when submitting their work to an open news distribution platform.
News is no longer the news, access to distribution is the news and there is a pressing need to experiment with new approaches to opening up news distribution rather than locking it down into professional guild-like channels.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Traditional media insiders are the least qualified to comment on the future of traditional media | Tweet |
Friday, April 01, 2011
'Keeping the bastards honest' - government's new role in combatting mainstream media mistakes | Tweet |
With the advent of social media I've been watching this role slowly twist into new forms and relationships.
One of the more interesting developments has been the take-up of social media by government to correct media mistakes.
Last century, when the 'big three' traditional media were the primary conduit of information to the public, often it was hard for government to challenge incorrect statements in the press. Politicians and agencies had to rely on 'friendly' media to carry the facts, and sometimes their voices were drowned out by commentators repeating a mistaken line.
With the growth of social media channels into highly effective news collection and distribution platforms, there is now a more even playing field.
Traditional media outlets can trumpet their view of the news and facts, just as they have for the last century or so. However government is also able to build and mobilise its own media distribution networks - at low cost and with massive reach.
This has led to a sea-change in the relationship between media and government which is still being worked through by all of the players involved.
Possibly the first strategic use of social media channels to correct media reports was by the US White House's Press Office several years ago. The Press Office naturally began to follow journalists via Twitter, 'listening' to their public messages as they discussed breaking stories, formulating their angles and swapping information.
However the Press Office did more than listen, President Obama's Press Secretary also engaged directly with journalists, correcting mistakes they tweeted and offering new information where warranted and appropriate.
Suddenly the US government was able to respond to news reports before they were reported, influencing and shaping stories through injecting facts and correcting misinterpretations.
Why did they do this? Correcting a journalist's facts before they publish is much more efficient then attempting to correct the facts in the public's eye after a journalist has published. You only need to influence a few people, rather than influence an entire nation.
Note that this approach wasn't effective for closing down legitimate stories (or even illegitimate ones), and the White House's Press Office did not use it in this way. The approach did, however, reduce the number of errors in stories, allowed better media preparation ahead of time (therefore allowing the government to research and provide more complete answers) and it saved public time and money - more efficient for citizens.
However this process only really targeted journalists. After a little longer, government organisations, again led by the US Press Office, began to also use social media to directly address misinformation and myths put about by media outlets.
In Australia this was seen most prominently recently in the Queensland floods, where the Queensland Police Service released a series of 'mythbuster' tweets and Facebook posts to counter misinformation being published in traditional media.
For example:
The same approach is now being undertaken by Sandi Logan, who tweets for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship.
The same approach is being used widely overseas during crisis or when particular topics are being discussed - or ignored - by the media.
I see this as a lasting change in the balance of power between media and government.
Media still has an important and significant role to report, analyse and dissect the events and issues of the day. It is still critical for investigating matters which organisations or individuals are sometimes reluctant to bring into the public eye.
However government now has a new and even more important role, keeping the media honest - ensuring that citizens are able to access factually accurate information that, sometimes, the media overlooks, gets wrong or even suppresses in order to create a sensational, controversial and, most importantly, commercial story.
Agencies resisting the use of social media channels may be doing themselves, the public and their Ministers, a disservice. By waiting passively for media to contact them, or reacting to media reports rather than proactively listening to journalists and communicating the facts, they may be allowing the level of misinformation in the community to spread unnecessarily.
This makes it harder and more expensive to correct mistaken impressions - particularly in emergencies - and increases the reputational risk for agencies and their Ministers.
Openness and transparency in government fostering accuracy in the media. Who would have thought?
Monday, September 27, 2010
When traditional media exposes public service bloggers | Tweet |
On Monday, 27 September 2010, Grog, of the Grog's Gamut blog, was outed by James Massola of The Australian as Greg Jericho, a federal public servant who happens to blog on matters of politics.
Massola, in his article Controversial political blogger unmasked as a federal public servant, has questioned Grog's right to challenge journalistic views, veiled under the question of whether, as a public servant, he was entitled to blog about politics.
Grog addressed this question through his own blog in a post, Spartacus no more, where he outlined the APSC's guidance, which states:
It is quite acceptable for APS employees to participate in political activities as part of normal community affairs.
APS employees may become members of or hold office in any political party.
APS employees, whether or not they are members of political parties, are expected to separate their personal views on policy issues from the performance of their official duties. This is an important part of professionalism and impartiality as an APS employee.
Where an APS employee is involved in publicly promoting party or other views on certain issues, and where their duties are directly concerned with advising on or directing the implementation or administration of government policy on those issues, there is potential for conflicts of interest.
Grog went on to say that he's never commented on anything other than publicly available material and did not comment on matters related to his specific duties.
I have never written anything which I have gleaned through work. All information I use comes from the media or press releases or public reports. This is pretty clear from anyone who regularly reads this blog – you never find “breaking” or “inside” news here – you find opinion and analysis.
The only thing that I find noteworthy about this 'expose' is that it demonstrates the fallacy of the argument that keeping your personal and professional identities separate online is an effective mechanism for resolving unwarranted perceptions of inappropriate online engagement.
While it is nice to believe that you can post online under a pseudonym and remain anonymous, this is rarely sustainable in the long-run. When someone is 'exposed' as using a pseudonym it becomes newsworthy simply due to the sensation.
I wish all the best to Grog - Greg Jericho.
And in the interests of the continued growth of Gov 2.0 in Australia, I hope he will have the clear support of his managers.
COVERAGE (EDITED):
Follow the discussion of this topic on Twitter using the hashtags #groggate and #grogsgate.
Statistics on the use of the Twitter hashtags is available at What the trend.
Articles and posts for 27 September:
ABC The Drum - Grog's great anonymity gamble
An Onymous Lefty - Grog-gate: Outing as bullying
Ariane's Little World - A person is not their job
B Sides - Privacy is not a gift for journalists to bestow or withdraw
Catherine Deveny - Groggate
Catallaxy Files - MSM arrogance
Core Economics - Transparency and blogging
Crikey / Pure Poison - The Grog’s Gamut outing: In whose interest?
Crikey - The whys and wherefores of bureaucratic blogging
Dermott Banana - Outings
eGovAU (here) - When traditional media exposes public service bloggers
Girl with a satchel - Monday Media Study: Grazia's Bingle Bungle & Groggate
Herald-Sun - Get away with you
Hoyden About Town - If you can’t defend yourself, you shouldn’t be allowed to speak
IAIN HALL's Sandpit - Grog’s Greg outed … so what?
I'm not Tina Wheeze - LOVE, ANON
Larvatus Prodeo - Grog’s Gamut outed by The Australian
Mediakult - Not navel gazing at Media140 (mentions in the conclusion)
Misc and Other - Why I don’t use my real name on twitter
Mumbrella - Australian outs blogger Grog’s Gamut
Mumbrella - Why the Grog’s Gamut outing harms The Australian
Random Black Heart Glitter Moments - On #groggate
The Accidental Australian - Outing the anonymous blogger. Good for the gander?
The Angry Exile - MSM vs Blogosphere - UPDATED
The Australian - No anonymity to bloggers, tweeters
The Australian - Twittersphere hit by storm over whether political blogger had a right to anonymity
The Bannerman - No Opinions Without Reality…or, Who Is James Massola?
The Conscience Vote - Who has the right to speak?
The Failed Estate - Now that We Have Your Attention...
The Gutter Trash - The Australian launches attack on Independent Blogger Grog’s Gamut
The news with nipples - Who gets to be anonymous?
The Vicious Circle - The Grog’s Gamut Irony
The Vicious Circle - Jack the Insider on team #Gamut?
The Australian - Why I unmasked blogger Grog
A Shiny New Coin - no, I am GrogsGamut
ABC The Drum - Bullet by bullet, the bloggers win the war
An Onymous Lefty - Jeremy's ear (not really on topic but mentions as an aside)
Ash's to Ashes blog - Confessions of a Blogger
Australia Incognita - Anonymity and the blogger
Blogging Townsville - Mudoch's approach to his papers' critics - will Island View be next?
Crikey - Simons: it wasn’t unethical to name Grog’s Gamut
Crikey - The Oz’s Bolt loose … science of pop-news … (touches on)
Crikey / Pollytics - Gibbons throwing poo
Crikey / Pure Poison - Don’t you know who I’m not?
Crikey / Pure Poison - Massola raises the stakes
Goonanism - A Passing Note on Grog’s Gamut
Grahame LJ - Anonymity and blogging
Happy Antipodean - Tuesday, 28 September 2010
Larvatus Prodeo - #Grogsgate and the right to privacy
Mumbrella - Blogger-outing journo: Grog’s Gamut was tweeting during work time
Online Opinion - Blogs and anonymity - another News conspiracy?
Ozylum – Asylum in Australia - New Media
Peter Martin - No-one should be forcibly reduced to a single identity
The Australian - A storm on the internet (Why should web writers escape scrutiny and responsibility?)
The Australian - Journalist threatened over Twitter outing
The Australian - The Oz declares war on bloggers: Rosen
The Australian - Blogosphere and Twitter no more than an echo chamber
The Bannerman - How Do They Insult Us? Let Us Count The Ways
The Canberra Times - The outing of a favourite blogger
The Failed Estate - The Empire Strikes Back
The Gutter Trash - The Australian: Accused of Just “Making Stuff Up” (Again)
The National Times - Tweets get messy as mainstream media takes on the blogosphere
The Riot Act - On Greg Jericho, groggate, and the public service.
Articles and posts for 29 September:
ABC The Drum - Why I'm quitting Twitter (Groggate given as influential)
Billablog - Who will be the next Grog-gate?
Dave from Albury's Weblog - Outing an amateur
HarrangueMan - Speaking of partisan chum buckets...
Insert Clever Title Here - Now we know who Grog is... what changed... #groggate
Instances of Ass Clownery - James Massola is an Ass Clown
Preston Towers - To Grog or Not to Grog
The Australian - Speak Queasy (see section on 'The Battle of Jericho)
The Dummer Press - We're under attack!
The Register - Media group faces both ways on the issue
Articles and posts for 30 September:
ABC The Drum - Quality sets The Australian apart
Black Dog - The Australian's War on Australia
The Australian - Grog blogger keeps his job
The Notion Factory - Anonymous
Articles and posts for 1 October:
Cafe Whispers - Fran speaking frankly (small mention)
Crikey - And the Wankley goes to… The Oz’s war on everything (bloggers, this week)
SBS World News Byte Me - #grogsgate raises enduring questions
The Bannerman - Burn Baby, Burn!
Articles and posts for 2 October:
Daily Dose - Kate’s Corner ~ Being “Outted” in Australian Society
Happy Antipodean - Saturday, 2 October 2010
James Purser [INSERT WITTY CATCHPHRASE HERE] - Grog Thoughts
The Australian - Test of Twitter-led revolution reveals a character limit
Articles and posts for 3 October:
Billablog - Grog-Gate 2 or We aren’t the ones who don’t get it, YOU are!
B Sides - A couple more points about Grogsgate
Crikey - The Content Makers - More on the Ethics of Outing Grog’s Gamut
Gary Sauer-Thompson's Weblog - Conversations - Twitter
Kate Carruthers - My Amplify - the continued misunderstanding of the relationship between Twitter & activism is getting annoying #groggate
Still life with cat - More on Grog's Gamut
The Australian - Salvos lobbed in the great blog war of '10
The Bannerman - Questionable Irony
The Bannerman - Going Through Hell, On A War Horse Called ‘Right’
Articles and posts for 4 October:
ABC The Drum - Anonymous sources no window to truth
Aide-Memoire - Twitter, commonsense and journalism #groggate
My Red Crayon - Grog Gate, may his legacy be a change for the better.
Restless Capital - Last word on #Groggate
sminney's posterous - "Media" 2-10-10 Deconstructed
Sydwalker.info - Naked Lies & Long Noses: from Watergate to #Groggate (a mention)
The Australian - As the anonymous walls of Jericho fall, the great blog war of '10 begins
Articles and posts for 5 October:
A Shiny New Coin - To speak in the first person
ABC The Drum - The Australian. Think. Again.
Aide-Memoire - Public discourse and private citizens – how free is freedom of speech? #groggate
Crikey - The Content Makers - Information Brokerage and Citizenship. More Reflections on Grogs Gamut
eGovAU - In the noise of #Groggate, don't forget those silenced
SkepticLawyer - Journalists are Luddites #groggate
Sydney Morning Herald - Journalists' jealousy behind a blogger unmasked The Canberra Times - Battle of Jericho
The Punch - Hitting journos where it really hurts: a handy guide
Upstart - Narcissus, Grog’s Gamut and a self-obsessed media
Articles and posts for 6 October:
eGovau - Stats on articles and posts for #Groggate (includes statistics on all articles mentioning Groggate listed in this post)
Articles and posts for 7 October:
Crikey - The Content Makers - Pseudonyms and Anonymity – a Previously Unpublished Case Study.
Mediakult - Blogging under the radar (references Grog)
Articles and posts for 8 October:
Townsville Bulletin - Cowardly world of bloggers
Blogging Townsville - The Townsville Bulletin celebrates our first birthday with style
Articles and posts for 10 October:
Peter Martin - The Australian does not follow a party line
the political sword - Grog, do come back – we need you
Articles and posts for 11 October:
ret's posterous: Cowardly world of bloggers - jeez that's rich
Articles and posts for 14 October:
The Australian - Grog's blog back in business
Articles and posts for 16 October:
Woolly Days - Grog rations (NEW)
Articles and posts for 17 October:
RickyRobinson.id.au - The Australian and the new Battle of Jericho
Related information and news:
ABC - Mark Scott's speech: The Quest for Truth: Quality Journalism and a 21st Century ABC (where Grog's comments about the mainstream media were first seem as influential)
Grog's Gamut - Election 2010: Day 14 (or waste and mismanagement – the media) (the original article from Grog referenced by Mark Scott)
Australian Press Council - Balancing privacy and press freedom
Online Journalism Blog - Time to talk about legal
Restless Capital - Brief historical reflections on anonymity and pseudonymity
The Australian - Twitter speaks and the ABC listens
The Australian - Hobby writers keep pros on their toes
The Advertiser - Censoring free speech in the secret state
The Herald-Sun - Outrage as South Australia's Rann Government, Opposition unite to gag internet election debate
The Sydney Morning Herald - Iranian blogger jailed for 19 years (Aside - Don't we use 'gaoled' anymore?)
The Guardian - No one gains from blowing the cover of this secret policeman
J352: Intro to Online Journalism - Blogger outed by journalist on Twitter
The Wall - BBC’s Marr blasts bloggers: socially inadequate, pimpled, single and seedy
Other mediums:
27 September - ABC Q&A - Politics, Betrayal and Sex (See closing remarks from Senator Conroy)
1 October - The Australian Media Series Audio Webcast - Grogs-gate: A storm in a tweetcup
2 October - 702 ABC Sydney - The Sunday Panel - To Twitter or Not to Twitter (see last few minutes)
3 October - Cartoon - grogsgamut droogisheep #274
A UK view from their 2008 Civil Serf debate:
DavePress - Public servants must blog, despite Civil Serf
There's also a Facebook page, If 100,000 people like this page I'll name my firstborn Grogs Gamut.
There's this T-shirt (I work in the public service and I tweet) and this T-shirt (Murdoch outed me and all I got was this crummy hashtag #GrogGate T-Shirt) - created by Black Bobs
And a poll I've set up asking - Do journalists have a right to remain anonymous?
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Will social media only come into its own in government when budgets run out? | Tweet |
The US Ambassador Jeffrey Bleich spoke this morning at Media140 #Ozpolitics on why President Obama used social media in such an innovative way during his election campaign.
Bleich said that it wasn't because President Obama particularly believed that social media was taking over from traditional media and it wasn't because his campaign team felt it would differentiate them from other Democratic candidates.
It was because they didn't have any choice.
Back in 2006 while Obama had enormous appeal as a Senator he didn't have the basics to win an election. No money, endorsements, name recognition or consultants.
He was running against Senator Hilary Clinton - who had been a household name for two decades, had a good funding machine, had locked up most of the big endorsements and had good consultants.
The core group of 'true believers' supporting Obama may have been passionate, committed and hardworking but they were underdogs. And, Bleich says, while Americans (and Australians) love an underdog, they normally stay under.
To compensate for the lack of supporters ready to contribute million-dollar donations, President Obama's team had to build campaign funds from grassroots supporters, at an average of $60 at a time.
To replace a lack of endorsements from national political leaders, Obama's team had to seek endorsements at a local level, from individual town leaders across the United States.
He had to get his name into widespread public use and he had to get advisors who could use special tools to catch up with Senator Clinton's advantages.
We all know the outcome. President Obama raised over US$500 million via small donations, built huge brand recognition across the United States and created a network of over 6.4 million engaged voters, who organised and influenced locally.
Ambassador Bleich says that social media shouldn't be thought of as creating a new way of communicating. It gives political leaders the capability to communicate with people in the same way they communicate in person.
He says that social media will replace traditional media where it is superior. It won't replace TV or other channels that are good at particular things that social media is not.
Bleich also said that shifting from campaign to governance has also posed an issue for social media use. The conversation is no longer with campaign supporters - a smaller and more supportive group. It is now with a nation, more people, more views and less support.
This view was reflected by Senator Christine Milne of the Greens during her comments on the panel 'How are real time and social media platforms changing political communication'. She said that MPs have a job to do - reading, discussing, meeting and voting. The time they can spend engaging and building relationships via social media channels is limited.
This raises an issue of authenticity. Milne says that even if MPs can spend time in social media building a 'celebrity' profile, if they cannot maintain the level of involvement and support it on an ongoing basis by delivering substance, it creates an issue.
Bleich said that Obama's campaign was able to fly under the radar, had no choice to experiment with online engagement. Whereas, Latika Bourke, during the panel discussion, said that during the Australian election most politicians went into hiding as they were afraid of being 'that politician who stuffed up on Twitter'.
So what does this mean for Australian politics and government?
It suggests to me that Australia's current political and government system will continue largely unchanged - on the surface.
While we don't face the same financial and engagement pressures as Obama's campaign there's no pressure forcing our politicians and public servants to engage online.
We're less likely to experiment and innovate while the fear of public failure outweighs the gain that can be achieved.
I realise this all sounds a little depressing for Gov 2.0 advocates - such as myself. However there are signs of hope.
Malcolm Turnbull, who was also on the panel, believes that technology has been a great democratiser - a child can make a movie with a mobile device that used to require a million dollars of equipment.
He says that despite some MPs feeling they face vitriol via social media channels, this isn't more than they previously faced via email, or even face-to-face.
He says that his engagement via Twitter is based on having a little fun, being willing to engage in a less formal way - be a little provocative, throw in some whimsy.
As we're already seeing with the growth of social media use by government there is increasing trust in allowing people to use the channel. As it becomes a normal approach to engagement the fear and scrutiny should diminish to the level appropriate to the medium and the messages.
This is likely to happen more slowly in a climate of 'business as usual' - where budgets exist for traditional media use and agencies and politicians both feel that existing channels meet their communications and engagement needs.
However change will happen. Social media will become a more important part of the mix where it is a superior medium. It just won't see the speed of adoption or innovation we saw during the last US Presidential campaign.
To give the last words to Ambassador Bleich, he said that social media can help spread facts as quickly as fictions. Government and politicians can use it to manage the 24 hour news cycle, mitigating issues by correcting news.
He says that social media, like all media since the printing press, is a two-edged sword - what's most important is that you have a handle on it.
