Updated on October 10, 2009 (scroll down)
Mathew Ingram precisely captures the inherent conflict between traditional and social media, where all voices compete equally - journalist, audience, advertiser: "(WaPo and NYT management asserts that) the maintenance of objectivity — or at least the appearance of objectivity — is the ultimate goal, and any potential benefits that stem from social media must be sacrificed in the pursuit of it. Those criticizing the newspaper’s moves, however, are of the view that objectivity is ultimately impossible, and that transparency is actually a better goal. In other words, disclosure of personal views and opinions whenever and wherever possible, rather than a pretense that they don’t exist."
Clay Shirky makes the case that you can't put the genie back in the bottle. That we are better off when journalists are accountable to all those voices. While I agree with that, there's a potential crisis when all voices appear equal, as in a social media context.
What are the implications for accountability when journalists risk being influenced by unidentified consumers and advertisers in the social media world?
All voices don't have the same intent. Writers, audience, advertisers all have something to say that's important, but different. A framework that establishes context for each, distinguishing one role from another is needed for true transparency. I think this is achieved by framework inherent in a functioning community. Communities organize individuals by the roles they contribute to the common good.
In my opinion, in a marketplace of abundant choices, where all voices are equal but separate, community is scarce.
Media companies like WaPo, NYT, local newspapers can improve media value by offering a community structure where members are transparent about their role and make a commitment to sustaining the common good.
October 4, 2009 UPDATE:
The transformation from content publisher to community publisher may sound overwhelming. But the first step is management and staff commitment to a commercially viable and profitable strategy. John Temple's insightful lessons learned on the demise of the Rocky Mountain News points out this lesson: "Have a strategy and be committed to pursuing it." This lesson emerges from the story of management not agreeing to a commercially viable business development strategy for new media. By commercially viable, I mean identifying opportunities for new media to add incrementally to the traditional business and optimizing profitability by incenting collaboration between the staff of the old and new media.
Ironically, John Temple offers another lesson that I think is completely contradictory: "Let the people running a new venture do what's best for their business, regardless of the potential impact on the old." Isn't this exactly what management did to lead to the failure of the Rocky Mountain News by not having a strategy? In other words, by letting the online side give away the same content for free online that appeared in print, they let the base business be cannibalized without replacing it with revenues of equal or better profitability.
The "let the new venture do what's best..regardless of potential impact on the old" rule was retweeted a number of times, triggering a reaction from Guy LeCharles Gonzalez: "What’s 'best for that business' can’t be looked at in a vacuum unless it’s wholly self-supporting, and most “new venture” revenues in publishing tend to represent a fraction of the “old”, while being completely dependent upon its continued existence to grow."
I agree with Guy that the new vs. the old rule is short-sighted. The fact that it is retweeted more than Temple's strategy commitment rule is not because it is right but because there are more journalists twittering than newspaper management. Leading me to believe that when all business stakeholders' voices are equal but separate, growth and profitability are scarce! Here are the dissonant voices I hear in the media business . . .
Media folks are sure the advertisers will be back. But they are not listening to the marketing folks who don't see any value in advertising. Less than 10% of the internet audience clicks on display ads. The dirty little secret is that the proportion of the TV audience watching tv comm'ls may not be much higher. The fact is the more $ you spend the more frequency you get against the same heavy TV viewers (and if they watch TV that much, they probably aren't getting out to work, make money, or shop, for that matter).
Marketing folks are shifting ad dollars to custom publishing/production/events. Aren't they listening to how many media companies are collapsing due to an abundance of consumer choices? What are they going to do when they need an independent, credible 3rd party to convey their message because of consumer backlash to custom publishing - with no representation that the website is owned and operated by a marketing company.
Journalists are joining the club of content creators, like studio writers, who fought for ownership of their voice, without thinking about the implications for their employer. For example, Journalists are outraged by the Washington Post telling their writers that they may not express their personal views on social media. When Hollywood writers fought the studios for their ownership rights and won, their employees replaced contracted writers with independents. This could be the next step for journalism. Before saying "so what?" - I've heard some veteran Hollywood writers wonder aloud if content wasn't better when a studio paid their salary, whether they wrote a blockbuster or a flop, than today when the writer takes all the risk. In fact, I heard one say that the censorship he fears the most is the writer's self-censorship.
Then there's the Technology guys who say they don't need media or marketing because they can just offer their product for free and consumers will figure out the best technology. That means they think Microsoft makes the best software, right :} Well, in my opinion, Microsoft is just waiting to be knocked off by a competitor who develops a solution to consumer problem caused by Microsoft's software, invests in educational marketing and sells directly to consumers instead of Microsoft's market domination strategy through exclusive distribution deals.
October 10, 2009 UPDATE:
Perhaps the timing is right to start a community where all Media stakeholders can collaborate. According, David Westphal writes in the Online Journalism Review that the War between New and Old Media is over.
Three of the commentators argue that old media still dominates and new media people still don't get it. Most of the commentators agree that no one has won anything yet. Including the readers.
Tom Grubisich articulates our belief that "when all voices are equal but separate, community is scarce" when he says: "We were told the Web had led us to the age of an 'edge-center, infinitely complex conversation... that will open communication in ways that benefit everyone' (Dan Gillmor). I can’t find that conversation. Would someone post links to it? Too much of the actual conversation is verbal exhibitionism that can be uncivil and sometimes vile. And what are we to make of a conversation where most of the participants put the equivalent of paper bags over their heads by refusing to identify who they are by actual name?"
You may have seen the flash presentation on our homepage that explains why Comradity media can add new dimensions of value to media companies, new and old. It occurs to us that our model may also be effective as an enterprise tool with a media company to build a sense of community with the common interest of growing company revenues and profits.
