A mission and a question

So at that same conference I wrote about in the last post -- the Online News Association -- one of the keynote speakers related an anecdote from a recent blog chat. Apparently, the political nature of the blogging topic caused a conservative poster to denigrate the discussion with cheap shots at John Edwards. In response, another person vowed to donate $10,000 to the Edwards campaign each time the flamer posted his/her trash talk. After two such posts followed by two $10,000 contributions (verified by the Edwards' campaign by the blogger), the poster was successfully driven from the chat.

Now, I cannot verify this anecdote, relayed by Yahoo's executive president of local markets Hilary Schneider. I cannot seem to find any mention of this incident online, so this may be inaccurate. Nonetheless the anecdote was met with general nodding approval among the audience of journalists and web developed up there in Toronto. The action and reaction on that blog signalled to these people that the self-correcting function of the Internet was alive and well. But it got me to thinking about freedom of expression according to how much money you might have.

The mission: Anyone care to help me out and find the incident in question online?

The question: Is the Internet really free? Surely, self-correction was happening. But what else was going on? Was that exchange about democracy or capitalism?

Data Structuring

I was at the annual Online News Association conference recently and one of the big topics there was data structuring -- which is an old term in computer science now brought into journalism. Data structuring basically means database-driven storytelling, very appropriate in the Information Age of the Internet where data are thrown at us from every direction. I've been seeing this buzzword all over the place lately, including on a recent Romenesko posting by Ken Sands (a fabulous former online editor at the Spokesman-Review in Washington who now works for Congressional Quarterly). The article discusses the new position of "data delivery editor" for the Roanoke Times. Examples of data structuring can be found at:
The DataUniverse at the Asbury Park Press
The RocDocs at the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle

Is this a new function for the press, or is it merely an old mission getting emphasized? What do we lose when we concentrate on structuring information, rather than storytelling with narrative, writing flow, and other more conventional techniques? What happens to story frames and news ideology when we siphon data into these forms, which tend to be structured via categories and keywords rather than context?

What's in a word

Check out the giant Style's piece in Sunday's NYT about the trajectory of a made-up word from a television show into pop culture. The word at issue is "vajayjay" though I am more interested in emphasizing the underlying premise of the news article: Semantics matter.

The Times journalist spends a lot of time discussing the pros and cons of this particular term from a cultural, feminist, racial and academic standpoint:

The swift adoption of vajayjay is not simply about pop culture’s ability to embrace new slang. Neologisms are always percolating. What this really demonstrates, say some linguists, is that there was a vacuum in popular discourse, a need for a word for female genitalia that is not clinical, crude, coy, misogynistic or descriptive of a vagina from a man’s point of view.

What exactly is a "vacuum in popular discourse"? Can we have a "need" for a word that does not exist? And doesn't this new word offer its own set of problems (i.e. its very childishness)?

Let's pull out a couple of other particularly interesting snippets from this piece:

Shonda Rhimes, the creator and executive producer of “Grey’s Anatomy,” who brought the word into full public view, never intended to promote a euphemism or slang term for the female anatomy. Rather, she fought to use vagina in the script.

And note the last quote in the story:

“It’s a word I use, a word my female friends use, a word I’ve heard women in the grocery store use. I don’t even think about where it came from anymore. It doesn’t belong to me or anyone at the show. It belongs to all women.”

What can we gather from all of this, in regards to word choice and language in our society?

First, consider the very idea that we can discuss this word from all of these perspectives -- cultural, racial, gendered. Who uses the word matters as well, in terms of power in meaning. It makes a difference that it was the no-nonsense character of Miranda Bailey that used the word, and not, say, sweet Izzy. Indeed, I find the very idea that someone or a group of someones can 'own' any word fascinating. How does one do that exactly? And why?

Second, I'm intrigued by the multiple life cycles this word has had -- from its inclusion in the script of a television show to its meteoric rise into mainstream conversation. So this 'fake' word is plucked from cultural obscurity, thrown into a fictional story (uttered by a fictional character), after which it crosses into the 'real' world via a series of mediated pushs (from Oprah to the blogosphere), until it ends up in people's conversations. Next thing the poor word knows? It's on the cover of the Times Style section. Where can it go from there?

Finally, while we're considering this word's cultural progression, let's not discount Oprah's influence in here. Once Oprah used the word, forget about it. How is it that a media icon can also control our common lexicon? What does that say about the new power elite -- a mediated elite, I'd argue -- in our society?

Thoughts?

This one doesn't really have a lot to do with convergence, but it's pretty amusing (originally reported in the Wash. Post):

FEMA scolded for staging phony news conference

By Associated Press | October 27, 2007

WASHINGTON - The White House scolded the Federal Emergency Management Agency yesterday for staging a phony news conference about assistance to victims of wildfires in Southern California. The agency, much criticized for its response after Hurricane Katrina more than two years ago, arranged to have FEMA employees play the part of independent reporters Tuesday and ask questions of Vice Admiral Harvey E. Johnson, the agency's deputy director.

The questions were predictably soft and gratuitous.... She said the agency was just trying to provide information to the public, through the news media, because there were so many questions....FEMA gave reporters only 15 minutes' notice about Tuesday's news conference. No reporter attended the news conference in person, agency spokesman Aaron Walker said. The agency made available an 800 number so reporters could call in and listen to the news conference, but not ask questions.

Talk about the 'pseudo-event' -- which scholars call news that is manufactured by the powers that be. I find it fascinating that FEMA bothered at all. I think that point goes to the whole idea of institutional authority combined with the pursuit of an authentic illusion: By nudging out the reporters, FEMA officials can construct their own reality for constituents while making it seem as if there were a real news vetting process going on. The mistake, though, was assuming reporters would either not catch on, or not report the ruse. And that is the result of misjudging individual reporters, their complex relationships with sources, and their self-conception of their role (i.e. their sense of power and control over information to maintain their own authoritative stance). Anyone else care to weigh in?

Are we what we watch?

Today people judge each other based in part, on what products we buy, with whom we hang out, what social circles we join, what clothes we wear, etc etc. A recent New York Times article suggested we also determine each other's value based on what we watch. Check this out:

It's a rich television age and a demanding one. The selection is now so plentiful and fragmented and good. And deciding among hundreds of channels, on-demand options, DVR, Internet streaming and iPhones requires so much research, planning and commitment that viewers have become proprietary about their choices. Alliances are formed, and so are antipathies. Snobbery takes root. Preferences turn totemic. The mass audience splintered long ago; now viewers are divided into tribes with their own rituals and rites of passage.

Adorno would be dismayed, to say the least. What does this say about the quality of our culture today? And of us and our social values? Is it even true? Do we feel as if what we tune into (and I mean on a regular basis) says something about who we are? I think it might suggest something about our likes and dislikes, but I am not sure it goes to our essential identity.
I'm going to write more about this, but for now, I wanted to pose this for discussion...

Individualism and Culture

I'm reading this book called MediaWork by Mark Deuze, and he declares us to be in a translocal culture, enabled by new technologies and media. One of the significant results of this is that people's worlds are individual-centric and fragmented. Here is an excerpt:

Today's citizen is not only skeptical and anti-hierarchal, she is also what Schudson calls 'monitorial': scanning all kinds of news and information sources for the topics that matter to her personally. People are not necessarily disengaged from the political process -- they just commit their time and energy to it on their own terms. This individualized act of citizenship can be compared to the act of the consumer, browsing the stores of the shopping mall for the perfect pair of jeans -- it is the act of the citizen-consumer. (2007, p.29)

The result is a decline in voting and other democratic activity.

But then you listen to National Public Radio and people argue that candidates and pundits do not give the 'people' enough credit. That we care, we are listening, and we will vote. We love our communities. Volunteerism is up.

Which is right? And, what role do new technologies play in making us be more of one or the other?

Chlling Effect in Crandon, WI

I found the statement by the AG in Crandon, WI, after that horrific killing last week requesting the community to not talk to the press to be bizarre and disturbing. Here is an excerpt from a Wisconsin State Journal article about it:

Not only did Van Hollen say last week that he would not hold any more news conferences in the city where the killings took place, he asked all Crandon residents to ignore reporters asking questions. As if leading by example, Van Hollen left the podium without taking questions.
... Many residents refused to speak to reporters after Van Hollen 's statement. Some told reporters to go home. Crandon Mayor Gary Bradley said he wished Van Hollen would have come down harder on the press.

This article detailed the criticism that The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and other news organizations voiced about freedom of the press, etc etc. But my problem with the request is much more fundamental. The AG asked residents to ignore their First Amendment right to speak freely in their own community. In doing so (and as residents complied), he closed off an avenue for a collective healing. Press theorists have long studied how journalism embodies one of our key societal rituals in processing crisis and tragedy. Journalists help us make sense of the nonsensical, learn lessons, remind us of our values, and move forward. I wish the attorney general had trusted people to speak to reporters or not, as they wished -- rather than create a chilling environment that made people worried they were somehow going against the community's interests in processing this tragedy in a collective manner.
What do you guys think?

The Feed (or corporated life)

I was reading this sci fi book recently called the The Feed about a futuristic society in which everyone has a glorified Internet connection in their heads. Computer chips were embedded in people's brains, integrated with their neurological and physiological systems. All of this was corporate sponsored and corporate run. Schools were privatized, run by companies. The end result being that an individuals essential existence was directly wired to conglomeration.
In short, the normal sci fi subject matter, right?

Check out the latest marketing camaign by Nike, as reported by the NYTimes today in "The New Advertising Outlet: Your life". Here is the lead:

STEVE SAENZ used to run a 10K race in 36 minutes. But last spring — 20 years, 2 children and 50 pounds later — he found himself seriously out of shape. A new Web site from Nike, he says, has brought him back on track.

Since April, Mr. Saenz, 53, has been running with a Nike+, a small sensor in his running shoes that tracks his progress on an Apple iPod he carries. After each run near his home in Louisville, Ky., he docks the iPod into his computer and posts details of his run on the Nike+ Web site. There, he has made friends with other runners around the world who post running routes, meet up in the real world and encourage one another on the site.

Nike’s famous swoosh is there all along. For Nike, this is advertising.

Basically by using online communities, communal events and partnering with lifestyle products, companies integrate themselves into people's identity. This article leads with a guy who A brilliant strategy, highlighted by this quote from the article:

Behind the shift is a fundamental change in Nike’s view of the role of advertising. No longer are ads primarily meant to grab a person’s attention while they’re trying to do something else — like reading an article. Nike executives say that much of the company’s future advertising spending will take the form of services for consumers, like workout advice, online communities and local sports competitions.

“We want to find a way to enhance the experience and services, rather than looking for a way to interrupt people from getting to where they want to go,” said Stefan Olander, global director for brand connections at Nike. “How can we provide a service that the consumer goes, ‘Wow, you really made this easier for me’?”

But let's think a minute about the implications of this for the way someone constructs their identity. And, specifically, for the way in which someone exercises that identity. One could argue that even with traditional product marketing, people employed brands to help in their status building, their presentation of themselves with friends and the public, and otherwise were incorporated into their lives. This feels different to me; another step in creating a corporated life identity where our very being cannot be separated from the products we use.
Am I being alarmist here?
Anyone care to disagree or otherwise weigh in?

Radiohead

While we're talking about the notion of the spirit of the Internet, let's consider Radiohead's decision to offer its latest album digitally, allowing customers to decide how much they want to pay. Some customers are offering $9; for others, it makes more sense to pay less than $1. Is this going to be a viable business model, do you think?

But beyond this, I love the interconnectedness of economics, media, value, fandom, and self and communal identity that this story is demonstrating. Consider this quote from the NYTimes article on the topic:

Mr. Loewenstein, whose specialty is behavioral economics and who has studied the relationship between emotions and financial decision-making, added: “It’s almost like supporting a sports team or donating to a political candidate. You’re selling to the world how much you like them by how much you pay.” Most important, he said, “how much you are willing to pay signals something to yourself about who you are: are you exploitative? Are you a tightwad?”

Has it come down, then, that our ability to be a fan (indeed, even to merely appreciate something) cannot be disassociated from our pocketbooks? I cannot help but feel as if we might be missing the more cultural and social value in Radiohead's music. In the music. In bypassing the traditional economic label relationship, Radiohead wants to put the focus back on their songs. On the other hand, their move has also been called "the greatest marketing scheme in the world."

Finally, there is a third tier of discussion here with this topic: The interactivity of the web means consumers have a chance to mess with a previously fairly rigid (or at least, rigidly adhered to) economic payment structure for information goods. Is this just an illusion? What is interesting to me is the idea that there can be a mass, bottom-up decision in capitalism at all. What do people think about the term "mediated value"? It is not a phrase I coined, but it is not usually used in this context. To me, Radiohead's decision indicates a new way of thinking about how information will be understood as a product, how its value will be determined through interactive media itself (as opposed to the specific channel being merely another attribute considered in the overall price point). Ok, this is still a bit undeveloped as a thought, but that's what blogs are for... Have at it, if you desire.

Marthapedia

It used to be television. Now it's people. Social networking sites are the latest marketing gold mine.

Check this Martha Stewart initiative out, called Marthapedia. Based on a wikipedia model, Marthapedia will ask people to virtually gather to discuss everything from recipes to spot removal in the malleable online encyclopedia format. One note though: any piece of advice you might want to add to this supposedly open-source publication is vetted through Stewart and her editors. And Martha admitted herself that the wiki is another advertising vehicle.

Does this meet the spirit of the social networking sites? What's going on here, sociologically, from a production standpoint, do we think? While you are thinking about this, consider these points on the Instigator (social media) blog today: Ignore the Social Media Scoreboard. An excerpt from that post follows:

At a high level, here are four things you can get out of social media:

1. Social media is about personal brand. It’s about providing you with a platform to express and demonstrate your domain expertise, interests, values and goals. It provides an extension for describing who you are to the outside world. ...
   
2. Social media is about reputation and trust. ...
3. Social media is about making money. I’m not sure when “making money” became a dirty word, but it shouldn’t be. And there’s a ton of opportunity online to properly leverage social media marketing. On top of that, many people look at how to use social media in a business context, bringing all of the proper practices of running a good business to the areas of social media. ...
4. Social media is about discovering opportunities you didn’t know existed.