Our recent discussions in class, and topics covered in readings, talk about how the Internet, social networks and advanced technology are changing everything. It's almost romantic, the fetishization we've layed on Google, the unyielding belif we've placed on social networks. You'd almost think that these new institutions could make everything right.
But, some things remain. In our discussion of Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's competing YouTube videos, we really didn't challenge the latent sexism present in the way we, and the media at large, scrutinized the two. When Shirky writes about the online cell phone recovery saga in the first chapter of his book, even he has to address the race and class issues that cam into play in the story.
So, while the Internet is a totally new frontier, some of the same -isms we've been dealing with for centuries have seeped into the Web. We shouldn't blame the net for it. But we shouldn't act like these things still aren't there.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
On Talent in Politics
In class we've been talking a lot about what makes a candidate succeed. A lot of this discussion has focused on Barack Obama's ability to galvanize the netroots in securing his historic victory. While the idea that the Internet played a large role in electing Obama, I think that we may put too much emphasis on the means and not the (wo)man.
If Barack Obama had the same online prowess he had, but the charisma of John McCain, he would have lost. If Hillary had the same online operation Barack had, she probably still would have lost. At the end of the day, the personal charisma, appeal and gravitas of an individual is the single most important factor in their election. Because that's what makes people want to join their online campaign. That's what makes them buzzworthy. That's what gets them votes.
Obama's netroot victory was a result of his political ability. As was his electoral victory. I feel that we mght have spent too much time in class glorifying new online fundraising and organizing models, not because they so completely changed electoral politics, but simply because we think these things are really cool.
At the end of the day, politicians must make compelling stump speeches, volunteers must knock on a lot of doors, and GOTV drives have to do a lot of what they were doing 30 years ago. Recognizing the changes new media and the internet has brought to the process is important, but we must not be blinded by the glossy appeal of social networks and intricate online databses. Poltiicians still win elections, as they always have.
If Barack Obama had the same online prowess he had, but the charisma of John McCain, he would have lost. If Hillary had the same online operation Barack had, she probably still would have lost. At the end of the day, the personal charisma, appeal and gravitas of an individual is the single most important factor in their election. Because that's what makes people want to join their online campaign. That's what makes them buzzworthy. That's what gets them votes.
Obama's netroot victory was a result of his political ability. As was his electoral victory. I feel that we mght have spent too much time in class glorifying new online fundraising and organizing models, not because they so completely changed electoral politics, but simply because we think these things are really cool.
At the end of the day, politicians must make compelling stump speeches, volunteers must knock on a lot of doors, and GOTV drives have to do a lot of what they were doing 30 years ago. Recognizing the changes new media and the internet has brought to the process is important, but we must not be blinded by the glossy appeal of social networks and intricate online databses. Poltiicians still win elections, as they always have.
Monday, March 30, 2009
AIG - Wiki in practice
The four tenets of Wikinomics are :
-Being Open
-Peering
-Sharing
-Acting Globally
Seemingly, these ideals are all positives. Openess and sharing. It's like kindergarten citizenship lessons for the Fortune 500. But the problem with them, and my problem with the book so far, is their lack of skepticism.
What if people don't want to be open, or share, or think/act globally? What if some people don't think that everyone's their peer?
Take AIG for example. Their recent bailout could be considered the application of Wikinomics on steroids. By accepting large amounts of federal funds, AIG was forced to share and be open, with their plans for rebuilding the compnay, what they did to get themselves, and the country, into the mess they're in, and about how much they were compensating their employees for the work they did.
The Obama Administration, by bailing out AIG, made every taxpayer feel as if they were the "peer" of the CEO. But instead of ushering a new era of amazing performance, everyone's mad. The public got more information than they probably needed, in finding out that rain or shine, financial markets do what they do best, pay a few people a LOT of money.
AIG execs were aghast at a public actually holding them accountable for something. And the government had to lay the mediator, in this new, open, "Wiki-ed" world.
Perhaps this example is an extreme. Actually, I know it is. But my point is this. Everything about WIkinomics isn't amazingly beautiful and palatable. And it shouldn't take 170 million dollars of bonuses to figure that out.
-Being Open
-Peering
-Sharing
-Acting Globally
Seemingly, these ideals are all positives. Openess and sharing. It's like kindergarten citizenship lessons for the Fortune 500. But the problem with them, and my problem with the book so far, is their lack of skepticism.
What if people don't want to be open, or share, or think/act globally? What if some people don't think that everyone's their peer?
Take AIG for example. Their recent bailout could be considered the application of Wikinomics on steroids. By accepting large amounts of federal funds, AIG was forced to share and be open, with their plans for rebuilding the compnay, what they did to get themselves, and the country, into the mess they're in, and about how much they were compensating their employees for the work they did.
The Obama Administration, by bailing out AIG, made every taxpayer feel as if they were the "peer" of the CEO. But instead of ushering a new era of amazing performance, everyone's mad. The public got more information than they probably needed, in finding out that rain or shine, financial markets do what they do best, pay a few people a LOT of money.
AIG execs were aghast at a public actually holding them accountable for something. And the government had to lay the mediator, in this new, open, "Wiki-ed" world.
Perhaps this example is an extreme. Actually, I know it is. But my point is this. Everything about WIkinomics isn't amazingly beautiful and palatable. And it shouldn't take 170 million dollars of bonuses to figure that out.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
On “Groundswell”
Groundswell tells its readers that new online social media is basically a jungle, and that corporations must navigate this terrain masterfully in order to survive. Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and blogs shouldn’t be feared by out-of-touch, aging CEOs; they should be embraced.
Most of what I’ve read thus far seems like a pitch to fearful CEOs to hire Forrester Communications as consultants. It’s pretty convincing. “It’s a scary Internet world out there. We’re here to help.”
But part of the book’s approach annoys me. Li and Bernoff paint new online social media as a savage beast, one that can ultimately be tamed, but is still savage, perhaps even sinister, nefarious, cunning. Unlike traditional media, which is true, simple, understandable and helpful.
For instance, they write: “Unlike journalists, bloggers may sometimes mix fact and opinion, report rumors, and fail to disclose conflicts of interest.
As if journalists don’t ever do the same thing…
There are countless incidences of “traditional journalists” not doing their due diligence. Mixing fact and opinion, like in the NYTimes story about John McCain and a female lobbyist, which intimated that the two had a sexual affair. Or reporting rumors, like the one that said people were being killed and raped in the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina. (That wasn’t true.) Or failing to disclose conflicts of interests, like the fact that Sanjay Gupta, CNN medical journalist, and formerly under consideration for US Attorney General, accepts speaking fees from many of the organizations he’s supposed to be reporting about fairly.
Often, this new media that supposedly has fewer standards than the old is doing what old media is too scared to. Breaking the Trent Lott/Strom Thurmond story, or the Mark Allen/Macaca scandal. Letting America know that White House press correspondent Jeff Gannon was actually a Bush II-era Republican plant. Or running a tighter fact-checking organization than Dan Rather and exposing “Memogate”.
New media’s not the enemy. Sometimes, it’s journalism’s savior. I hope that Li and Bernoff make this point more directly before the end of the book. Even if they’re only getting consulting gigs from those scared of the new stuff.
Most of what I’ve read thus far seems like a pitch to fearful CEOs to hire Forrester Communications as consultants. It’s pretty convincing. “It’s a scary Internet world out there. We’re here to help.”
But part of the book’s approach annoys me. Li and Bernoff paint new online social media as a savage beast, one that can ultimately be tamed, but is still savage, perhaps even sinister, nefarious, cunning. Unlike traditional media, which is true, simple, understandable and helpful.
For instance, they write: “Unlike journalists, bloggers may sometimes mix fact and opinion, report rumors, and fail to disclose conflicts of interest.
As if journalists don’t ever do the same thing…
There are countless incidences of “traditional journalists” not doing their due diligence. Mixing fact and opinion, like in the NYTimes story about John McCain and a female lobbyist, which intimated that the two had a sexual affair. Or reporting rumors, like the one that said people were being killed and raped in the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina. (That wasn’t true.) Or failing to disclose conflicts of interests, like the fact that Sanjay Gupta, CNN medical journalist, and formerly under consideration for US Attorney General, accepts speaking fees from many of the organizations he’s supposed to be reporting about fairly.
Often, this new media that supposedly has fewer standards than the old is doing what old media is too scared to. Breaking the Trent Lott/Strom Thurmond story, or the Mark Allen/Macaca scandal. Letting America know that White House press correspondent Jeff Gannon was actually a Bush II-era Republican plant. Or running a tighter fact-checking organization than Dan Rather and exposing “Memogate”.
New media’s not the enemy. Sometimes, it’s journalism’s savior. I hope that Li and Bernoff make this point more directly before the end of the book. Even if they’re only getting consulting gigs from those scared of the new stuff.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
The Database of Intentions
I should probably forgive John Battelle for the enraptured tone of his book, "The Search." I mean, I fawn over Google, too. I use it every day. It's my e-mail provider, go-to website, the way I track my online persona. And yes, it's probably changed the way a lot of people do a lot of things.
But what if Google's not as paradigm-shifting as Battelle makes them out to be? While the Gaurdian is declaring the death of capitalism and the birth of Google-ism, and this guy makes a pretty compelling claim Google is God, with it's omnipotence, omniprsence, and prayer-answering capabilities, I'm still not convinced.
I mean, there is an official Google Sucks website, with claims that Google partnered with China to censor the Internet. Another man calims that googlemaps almost landed him in jail. And the list could go on and on.
Whether or not I believe Google is great or ghastly though, I found all my support for either claim, on you guessed it, Google. Battelle must be right. Something that requires its usage just to argue its right or wrongness is something not just ubiquotous, it's revoluntionary--because it's the beginning and ending of seemingly all knowledge, even knowledge to disprove it.
This "Database of Intentions" as Battele terms it, has changed the entire world. It tracks our culture, our wants, and more. It's more than just a business model, it's a new way of life. I guess... But the new "Library of Alexandria"? "THE point of our inquiry and discovery"? That's lofty language.
What filled Google's role before google? The author argues that early, less-rudimentary computer-based search engines did, but something must have done so before that, even. Newspapers, consumer habits, church records, something. But Battelle would have you believe that there's really nothing before or after Google. It alone is the sole, supreme Database of Intentions. I'm not quite there yet. I'll need to do some more googling to find out.
But what if Google's not as paradigm-shifting as Battelle makes them out to be? While the Gaurdian is declaring the death of capitalism and the birth of Google-ism, and this guy makes a pretty compelling claim Google is God, with it's omnipotence, omniprsence, and prayer-answering capabilities, I'm still not convinced.
I mean, there is an official Google Sucks website, with claims that Google partnered with China to censor the Internet. Another man calims that googlemaps almost landed him in jail. And the list could go on and on.
Whether or not I believe Google is great or ghastly though, I found all my support for either claim, on you guessed it, Google. Battelle must be right. Something that requires its usage just to argue its right or wrongness is something not just ubiquotous, it's revoluntionary--because it's the beginning and ending of seemingly all knowledge, even knowledge to disprove it.
This "Database of Intentions" as Battele terms it, has changed the entire world. It tracks our culture, our wants, and more. It's more than just a business model, it's a new way of life. I guess... But the new "Library of Alexandria"? "THE point of our inquiry and discovery"? That's lofty language.
What filled Google's role before google? The author argues that early, less-rudimentary computer-based search engines did, but something must have done so before that, even. Newspapers, consumer habits, church records, something. But Battelle would have you believe that there's really nothing before or after Google. It alone is the sole, supreme Database of Intentions. I'm not quite there yet. I'll need to do some more googling to find out.
Monday, February 9, 2009
My Thoughts on Chapter 9 – “We The Media”
Gillmor makes the argument in Chapter 9 of his book that the Internet is a haven for liars, crooks and thieves. It’s easier than ever before, he argues, with the help of the Internet, to twist information, cherrypick what you want to share, and keep people in the dark. And with the wealth of information on the Internet, both true and false, it takes even longer to get to the bottom of things.
Gilmor says, “These techniques (of deception) are made to order for the Internet, where lies spread quickly and can do enormous damage before the truth catches up.”
I kind of disagree. While I definitely believe that it’s easy to lie on the Internet, I don’t yet know if the Internet actually magnifies man’s propensity to lie, which has been great throughout history.
Gilmor’s examples are lacking. His Schmich/Vonnegut example, in which a commencement essay came to be misquoted as an address by a famous author, is perhaps a testament to the redemptive nature of the Internet. He dwells on the fact that the lie was propagated online, but we could just as easily stress that it was the Internet itself that helped ultimately spread the truth. Could any other medium have allowed the reality of a situation like this come to light as quickly? In the past, a newspaper retraction would never have reached as large an audience in print. An essay critical of a recent book’s flaws might very well have fallen on deaf ears.
His Kerry/Fonda example is actually a critique on PhotoShop, NOT the Internet. Doctored photos were a reality before the Net, and have wreaked havoc on politics long before the World Wide Web came about.
Ultimately, I concede that the Internet can be a force for ill, but I refuse to yet believe that the Internet has created any more ill than was there before it hit the scene.
It’s a crude example, but entertain this:
Decades and centuries ago, a cheating man just wouldn’t come home. He’d tell his wife some lie about working late or going to visit his sick mother. Eventually, he came to relay that message through someone on horseback, perhaps. Land-line phones were the next carrier of such deception. Now, that same man can lie to his significant other via text message, or on g-chat. No matter the technology, though, he’s still lying. She’s still deceived. It’s just a bit fancier now.
The Internet created lying in the same way a cell-phone created cheating. Neither create the action, they just perpetuate it differently than before.
The trick is to be ethical enough not to be the “cheating man” on the Internet, and smart enough to know when someone’s trying to use the Web to make you the deceived “significant other.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
