24 September, 2009

Rick Stemm and the Boundaries of the Global Village



Rick Stemm had a post up at Dane 101 yesterday called "New Media: How We Took Control". I was going to reply at the site but my response dragged on so I decided to turn it into a post here.

In a Danecast which I have not heard, Rick "argued that new media forces the responsibility of journalism onto the consumer instead of the reporter. Not that journalists should be held any less accountable." What? If reporters are alleviated of any responsibility, what are they to be held accountable for? Personally, I despair if new media even nudges consumers to be journalists. I want professional journalists bringing me my news, not consumers. Consumers generally want to consume, not head the Fourth Estate. Blogging about a concert doesn't make anyone a journalist anymore than looking up symptoms at WebMD makes one a doctor. Posting "pictures of my Ale Asylum brewery tour or a Sunspot show while at the very event" are not examples of practicing journalism. Neither is posting to Facebook. If simply sharing one's experiences counts as journalism to you then I guess you and I are simply at a semantic impasse because, from my perspective, journalism is about much more than that. I find it odd that he says that "Dane101 is at the forefront of this movement [new media]" and that consumers now bear the burden of responsibility alone. Not to discount or insult the contributors of Dane 101 but the site has precious little journalism in it. Most of what there is comes in the form of links to articles by, well, real journalists who work at the old media spots of newspapers and television stations. I've been critical of Dane 101 previously but I mean the above not as a criticism, but merely mean to say that the direction the site has taken is one that does not include a lot of original journalism.

One problem is that I'm not sure what Rick means by "new media". While I'm at it, I'm also not sure what he thinks they have taken over. It sounds like braggadocio to me. It's one thing to say that people at a film festival can post to their blog very quickly, but it's another thing to take the concept of new media and equate it to consumer journalists, which I think Stemm does. How film and music festivals are covered has changed but that doesn't mean that consumer journalists makes the likes of Seymour Hersh obsolete. It doesn't even make them amateur Lester Bangses.

I hope you won't misunderstand me because I am not saying that sharing experiences is worthless. Far from it. I do it all the time here at this very blog. But Stemm's post made a sweeping generalization about all reporting yet he gave examples only relating to the arts, for want of a better way of saying it. He lumps the ability of consumers to share their experiences at a film or music festival in with the long, hard work of an investigative reporter and I think that's unfair.

Another area where it seems Stemm and I disagree, which could very well just be my interpretation of what he wrote and not his intended meaning, is that he seems to blindly favor quantity. The ability to share timely, personal coverage of a festival doesn't mean that that coverage is actually interesting, that the individual writes well, nor has any insights of note.

As for his comment "There is simply no excuse in this day and age to be lacking information or to accept misinformation," that is, to me, just wishful thinking. As long as human beings are behind it, there will be problems and imperfections. The Internet is a medium, it's up to highly imperfect and biased people to do the sifting and winnowing. The Net couldn't care less if the information is bogus or not. The truth of any given matter is probably out on the tubes, but that doesn't mean that it won't take time and effort to get at it and I highly suspect that most consumers aren't willing to invest a whole lot of either to ensure that they arrive at it. Be a purist if you want, but down on the ground, people have responsibilities and interests which don't involve spending hours in front of a computer checking dozens of sources, reading through documents, etc.

Stemm waxes poetic about a "global village" and says "We are always connected". Who is this "we"?

I am reminded of a conversation I had a couple weeks ago. I was on break at work and outside when a gentleman who was around 60 approached me and asked about some construction at Library Mall. I told him what I knew. But he was an inquisitive soul and he kept the conversation going. I forget how, exactly, but the topic turned to computers. He expressed his loathing of them and related to me how he used to work at Memorial Library but quit once everything became computerized. (Whether it was the influx of technology alone which caused him to part ways with his employer, he did not specify.) This comparative youngster was then subjected to a mild-mannered tirade about how computers are a poor substitute for face-to-face interaction and how they can only provide an inauthentic experience. Or something like that.

I proceeded to tell him that I worked in IT and that he'd get no sympathy from me on this matter. He pointed to all the college kids walking around Library Mall to and from class and remarked on how technically savvy they were. I told him that I disagreed. They might be technically literate, perhaps, but not necessarily technically savvy. But, just as any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, posting what you had for lunch on Facebook and doing e-mail might be technical savvy to someone who won't touch a computer with a ten foot pole and instead hates them from afar. Not convinced, my interlocutor then pointed at the students once again and remarked that they are all somehow deficient because of the role technology plays in their lives.

This irritated me and I shot back, "For someone who hates computers, refuses to use them, and knows absolutely nothing about them, you sure are an expert on them and how they affect people." My point was not that he was wrong, although I think he was, but rather that he was in no place to judge. All he had were anecdotes and apocalyptic predictions from luddites like himself as opposed any contact with college kids or to computers. He was forced to concede my point.

The global village is relative. As with the gentleman I wrote about above, most seniors aren't citizens of the Pala island Internet utopia. The 3+ billion people on this planet who subsist on under $2.50/day are probably spending more time trying to find potable water instead of updating their Facebook statuses. About a quarter of all people on this planet don't have electricity. How global is the village to them? Closer to home, Madison's Literacy Network deals with many people right here in town who are either illiterate or need help learning English as a second language. The African immigrant I tutored was not a part of Stemm's Internet world. He was concerned with learning English and couldn't afford a computer and another monthly utility bill. The Internet's reach is global but the so-called global village is actually an exclusive club, albeit a blind one.

Before we go around claiming that the new media has taken control of anything, we must consider those who are left out of it or who choose not to participate in it. Personally, I think the Madison new media landscape is disappointingly homogenous. It could use the Digital Age equivalents of Sol Worth and John Adair to get those who are underrepresented into the mix. Let me try to illustrate the point.

Stemm remarked that Dane 101 is at the forefront of the new media movement and he cites the "timely, personal coverage of the Forward Music Fest" as an illustration of this. OK. I can't complain about such coverage and agree with him that it is a positive development. Indeed, I liked to it at my music blog/podcast. But the new media juggernaut completely ignored the Madison World Music Festival. Where was the coverage? And you know what? I didn't see a goddamn review from it over at The Daily Page either. (That's your cue, Kristian Knutsen, to point out all the coverage that I can't find.) 77 Square ran a preview by Tom Alesia but my searches for actual reviews came up empty. However, Katjusa Cisar's coverage of Forward takes up pages and pages. A search at Google Blogs brings up some photos from someone at WSUM but little else. If ignoring the World Music Festival in favor of O.J. Simpson trial-like coverage of the Forward Music Fest is what Stemm's new media is about, then I'll take a different one, please. I know Dane 101's Jesse Russell doesn't like me but I respect what he does and I don't think his site ignored the World Music Festival simply to push one organized by Dane 101 contributors, former or current. (And to avoid receiving another nasty e-mail in which I am called an asshole, I will also say that I don't think it's racism either.) But I'll take the egalitarian claims that for Dane 101 and new media more seriously when events like the World Music Festival get a bit more attention from Madison's new media than simply appearing in a list of events happening on a given weekend. New media in Madison may be egalitarian and democratic in theory, but in practice it has a long row to hoe if it is to get beyond parochialism.

19 comments:

Jesse said...

I read Rick's piece as being more about taking control of the conversation and not as a piece suggesting we have replaced journalism.

I encourage you to read my critique of the new madison.com website. In it I tried to express the need for traditional news outlets and the role I see for dane101.

As for the Forward Music Festival, I quit in April 2009 and had zero involvement in the planning of what happened this past weekend. That said, you'll note that only two dane101 articles from May of this year carry my byline. Adam and Emily were in bands that played the fest, but had no involvement in the planning. Essentially, no one at dane101 had any involvement in planning FMF 2009.

Skip said...

Regarding the fest, from what I've read, Ms. Cherry and Mr. Manning were the organziers. (Or at least the primary organizers.) Is this incorrect? And are they or were they not Dane 101 contributors? Hence my current or former comment.

I apologize if I gave you the impression that I was referring to you.

I have to admit that reading statements about how responsibility has shifted to the consumer didn't give the impression that it was about control of the conversation.

I shall read the post you linked to later when I've had more coffee.

Unknown said...

I think your definition of what "real journalism" is is something that fewer and fewer people are embracing. It is gradually being replaced as the dominant form of journalism (in a general sense) by something new which is what I think Rick is getting at.

I believe hard news and reporting is not what many people are interested in anymore. People still want to read about what is going on in the world around them but they want to hear it from people who have some kind of personal connection or unique perspective on the event. I think this explains the growing success of programs like "This American Life", Glen Beck, Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, The Daily Show, and the Colbert Report.

All of those shows are making huge gains in audience while traditional news/hard news audience is shrinking.

I think blogs and "new media" websites like Dane101, The Daily Page, 77 Square, and so on provide something similar to what those TV shows provide. News and analysis provided by people who have some kind of a personal connection or a specific viewpoint (usually ideological).

That doesn't mean that there isn't still demand for hard news and the old style journalism, and Dane101 does provide a certain amount of that content (see the Edgewater series for an example), but it's not what most people on the internet are looking for these days.

If you look at social media sites such as Digg, hard news makes up maybe 20% of the most popular stories.

Emily said...

I actually agree with several of the points you've made here, Palmer. I wish you had taken the time to post some of your response on the site, because I think it's an important piece of the discussion.

There is a marked difference between honest to goodness journalism and cultural commentary of the likes you find on blogs and Facebook. I think both have their place, but we should not conflate the two. I'm not entirely sure that's what Rick was trying to say, but your point remains valid.

Some quick side notes: I don't think Wyndham was ever a Dane101 contributor, and Bessie hasn't been one in quite some time. For what that's worth. Also, I desperately wanted to cover the World Music Fest (as I have in past years), but as a member of two bands that were playing at Forward, it was nearly impossible to find the time. We also just weren't able to find any other contributors who were willing to write about it, for one reason or another. I am surprised, however, that other outlets didn't cover it very well. Other outlets have budgets, and in my mind, less of an excuse. :P

Second, to your assertion that "...the direction [Dane101] has taken is one that does not include a lot of original journalism."

Have you been reading lately? Did you miss Dusty's three-part series about the Edgewater? Interviews with artists and label founders? Dar's BIY column? We have been making a concerted effort to provide more original content (and I don't think something needs to be strictly about politics or city affairs to count as journalism), so I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion you did on this.

Which isn't to say we think we're all journalism all the time, or ever will be - I don't think that was ever the intent of Dane101. But I think that, for an outfit that's almost entirely volunteer run, we're doing a pretty good job and are always looking for ways to improve.

Unknown said...

I should point out, so that I'm not misunderstood, that I don't think Dane101 is going for the "news from an ideological perspective" angle. I was using the "news from an ideological perspective" as an example of the kind of story that people want to read these days. I think Dane101 goes mostly for a "news from someone involved in the local scene" perspective which is in a similar vein.

Rick said...

Part of the misunderstanding here was my fault. I must have blurred my message between posts.

My recent article was simply about new media and its effect on social netowrking - and society in general. My recent piece was not meant to be about journalism.

However, I stand by my comments in the previous Danecast. Being a consumer does not make you a reporter. In fact, I was arguing the opposite. BECAUSE there are so many poor journalists out there - professional ones, included - we need to be smart consumers and take responsibility.

When print was the main/only medium, we had a lot less control, and were largely forced to take the media's word for it. That's not the case now. If we hear something on Fox News or read something in the Washington Post or see something on Dane101, we're not forced to believe it. We have a number of other outlets instantly available.

My point was that all information is not created equal, and there is a lot of it out there, but I think that's a good thing. It makes it easier to fact check, get multiple perspectives and opinions, and ce critical consumers. But in order to get closer to the truth, we NEED to be critical consumers. And this day and age, there's no excuse not to be.

Rick said...

I want to add I'm extremely glad this post was written and further discussion was generated!

I encourage you to listen to the relevant part of the Danecast where we discuss journalism specifically, since my recent article was more about social media, and less about news.

Jesse said...

"Regarding the fest, from what I've read, Ms. Cherry and Mr. Manning were the organziers. (Or at least the primary organizers.) Is this incorrect? And are they or were they not Dane 101 contributors? Hence my current or former comment."

Clarification: Ms. Cherry's final contribution to dane101 was on September 26, 2008. Mr. Manning is not a dane101 contributor.

They had very little communication with dane101 leading up to the 2009 festival (even when Josh tried to interview Bessie or secure press passes). And you'll note in the daily page thread about FMF2009 they don't share your opinion that we had too much coverage of the event.

"I think anyone who paid attention to festival coverage on Dane101 last year vs. the coverage this year is able to make their own determination on bias. No sense arguing here."

In case anyone is wondering, the truth is we had 24 articles in 2008 and 21 articles in 2009.

George H. said...

A couple of things:
Media is plural. Medium is singular. (There is an old joke: the plural of "media" is "mediocre.")
When it comes to news, more is always better. The more viewpoints, the better informed we all are. It is folly to compare one type with another. A foot cannot do what a hand can do. Every medium has a flaw. I couldn't get through the day without checking Dane101, but as an outsider, it is fairly easy for me to see the flaws: Lots of insider stuff, incessant back-patting, failure to objectively analyze some items because of personal relationships (always a problem in any set-up, especially a volunteer-driven one), etc. Some obvious biases or "friendship" coverage of each other's pets. That sort of thing. The new page design is terrific, the writing often way above average.
New media? They are necessary evils to some and just necessary to others. I don't know why anyone would want to denigrate one just because someone doesn't choose to use it exclusively.
I am biased. We all are. We bring that to our view of the world and our interpretation of what we read and how and what we write and what we think is important.
There are lot things we don't have a choice about these days, so I am always puzzled by those who would want to limit those choices.
Last comment: the news runs hot and cold, good and bad. Dane101 has good days and bad days, as does the State Journal and Isthmus and the Journal-Sentinel, Badger Herald, Daily Cardinal. The one problem I have followed in all these "old school media" is the perception from "new media" users and providers that there is some mysterious unseen hand guiding all this and the motive is to personally piss you off. Most days, to tell the truth, we couldn't conspire to start a wastebasket fire.
George Hesselberg

Skip said...

George H. – thanks for commenting. I'll address yours first and work backwards.

Having had 8 years of Latin, I know that media is plural. Just like data. I neglected to insert a definite article in there, hence the mistake. Thanks for pointing that out.

I disagree with your assertion that more is always better with regards to news. Time is finite and I don't have the enough of it to sift and winnow through people all parroting the same news. Michael Jackson dies and droves of people starts saying the exact same thing. At some point a threshold is reached where consumers of news, such as myself, just don't have the time or knowledge to get beyond coverage of some event which dominates media outlets.

To be crystal clear here, I did not say nor did I imply that Dane 101 has any problems whatsoever by virtue of the friendships of the contributors. As for your comment: "I don't know why anyone would want to denigrate one just because someone doesn't choose to use it exclusively", I am not sure what you are getting at, i.e. – is this an accusation leveled at me or a general observation?

I understand your comments re media outlets having good and bad days and agree. I also agree with your comment regarding biases. But I wasn't trying to argue that people should try to transcend their personal biases. Instead, I was referring to a collective bias that is not being mediated by the egalitarian nature of new media. Ideally, consumers are to be flooded with various points of view, i.e. – put all manner of biases on display. And, with regards to Madison, I don't think this happens. When certain events are given blanket coverage and others ignored, it means that large numbers of people all have similar/the same biases and having a large # of these people giving me "more news" does not make up for events which are denied coverage. More of the same does not equal quality. Stemm said that one of the great things about the new media can be exemplified by the timely/personal coverage of the Forward Festival at Dane 101. And I agree with him. Finding this coverage is easy. But trying to find timely/personal coverage of the World Music Festival has proved fruitless. More Forward coverage doesn't make up for the paucity of WMF coverage.

I don't have ironclad proof to explain why the WMF was virtually ignored. Similarly, I don't have ironclad proof to explain why, say, Africa Fest never gets any coverage either. Why does the "Madison music scene" rarely, if ever, extend to a joint like R's Place down on South Park? Why is it that when indie rock bands from Madison do good for themselves and get to tour nationally, I hear about it from the usual suspects and am told to follow the tour via Twitter or a blog yet when a local metal band like Luna Mortis does good and tours the country, this is ignored by most? I don't know but I do not think that these are just the random consequences of the vagaries of new media and nor are these things the result of a conspiracy. My hypothesis is that there are multiple factors involved but that one of them is simply the homogeneity of new media.

Another example of what I mean can be found at my music blog/podcast:

http://www.upthedownstair.net/2007/12/didnt-black-people-make-any-great-music.html

This is why I made the comment about needing Digital Age Sol Worths and John Adairs.

Skip said...

Jesse - thanks for your clarification.

George H. said...

Ah. I should add, I was responding to your AND on Rick's original comments. Sorry.
Still, worthwhile to discuss and I appreciate and share your views.
George Hesselberg.

Skip said...

Shane – I think you hit on something important. However, just because people don't want to consume "real journalism", doesn't, in my view, justify a change of definition. But if the definition is to change and my disagreement with Rick Stemm is purely semantic, then what do we call now what used to be called journalism? What does Seymour Hersh practice? What is the product of people who write for old media called? You know, the information that bloggers link to and comment on that is obtained by hoofing it around town, interviewing people, sifting through documents, issuing FoIA requests? The stuff that Dane 101's Breakfast Links links to? I'm not trying to ignore the new media but rather to say that it and the old media have a relationship that is symbiotic, parasitic, and sometimes downright incestuous.

I disagree with your assessment regarding the various TV programs, although I have to concede that the notions of "personal connection or unique perspective" may very well play into the matter. Instead, I would offer that the success of these shows indicates 1) that they entertain and 2) that people who already agree with the hosts watch them to have their own views reinforced.

I understand that Dane 101 does some hard news. To be honest, I was thinking of the recent Edgewater series as well when I wrote that it has little of it instead of none. But who wrote those pieces? Was it not Dusty Weis, who makes journalism his profession? It was not just some Joe Six-Pack sharing his experiences, it was someone who is trained (as far as I know) in old school journalism and practices it for a living.

So what if only 20% of the stories at Digg are hard news? Let me give you an example of what I mean which relates to my attending Michael Pollan's speech last night. Just because Americans eat more Fruit Loops and potato chips than raw vegetables doesn't mean that what has traditionally been known as "junk food" can rightfully be called "healthy".

Skip said...

George H. - I see. As I type, I still have not read any of Rick's comments nor Emily's. Hence the confusion.

Cheers

Skip said...

Emily – I agree that cultural commentary (which I refuse to define as "journalism") certainly has its merits and is also certainly worthwhile.

I am going to avoid the whole former/current contributor issue here because Jesse addressed it above rather thoroughly, methinks.

With regards to the Edgewater bit, I just addressed it in a comment to Shane. I haven't read all the comments yet and have instead been replying one by one. So, in relation to Rick's comments about journalism, the consumer, and new media, i.e. – this triumvirate has wrestled control away, I will say again – who is Dusty Weis? Unless he leads the readers of his blog on, he is a professional journalist, no? Again, with the caveat that the info I've gleaned about him comes from his blog, he does a bit more in his line of work than merely "sharing his experiences". Using a professional "old school" journalist to bolster the argument that consumers are the new journalists doesn't fly for me.

Emily, I'd like to repeat something I wrote to Jesse earlier. Nothing in this post was meant to bash Dane 101. I was NOT trying to say, "Well, Dane 101 was supposed to be all hard news all the time – and just look at it!" I was NOT trying to be critical of Dane 101 for a lack of "real journalism", perceived or otherwise. Everything I wrote was meant to address something Rick wrote, the key bit being his claim that Dane 101 is at the forefront of his vision of the new media.

Skip said...

Rick – I've been taking comments more or less in order of newest to oldest and you, the instigator of all this (j/k), are addressed last. Sorry about that. And now you tell me it's all one big misunderstanding – d'oh! ;)

Yeah, there are bad reporters out there as well as good ones. As I said in the post, any endeavor that involves human beings will put on display the better parts of our natures as well as the worst. To tie your comment about not being forced to believe things in the media to George's comment, let me say this: Yes, having a plethora of outlets instantly available is great, but it proportionately increases our workload. Being a critical consumer of news is easier in that there are more outlets with information but it is also introduces difficulties because it means an infinitely large # of sources need to have the harsh light of critical examination brought to bear on them. To be a bit hyperbolic, if the truth of a matter is out there and in order to ascertain it I have to go through 4 dozen websites, muddle through several which must be translated by Google Translator or Babel Fish, and so on, then the utility of this information explosion becomes limited. The truth is out there but that doesn't mean getting to it won't require a near Herculean effort.

When you write, "But in order to get closer to the truth, we NEED to be critical consumers", I agree 110%. However, when you write, "And in this day and age, there's no excuse not to be", well, that's utopian thinking. There is absolutely nothing unique about our Internet-laden present which can overcome our collective human faults. Critical thinking has been around for ages. You didn't need Aristotle to define a syllogism for you in order to practice it. Yet it has been ignored and practiced selectively for thousands of years. Our emotions are very potent. A new communication technology doesn't make human frailty disappear in less than a generation, if ever at all.

Anyway, Rick, thanks for commenting.

Take care - Skip

Skip said...

And Rick, I mentioned Sol Worth and John Adair because you're the film guru @ Dane 101 and I don't even get an 'atta boy?! Forsooth! ;)

Rick said...

This post was a great read. I'm glad you wrote it, and you made some good points. I'm excited to see discussion and critiques of this topic. I fully admit to having an overly utopian view, and I don't mind you dismantling it a bit. Part of that is my personality - I'm not a journalist myself, just an entertainer, and definitely infuse things with exaggeration. I still want to be an advocate, even if I lean too far in one direction.

You're right, you deserve props for the Worth/Adair reference, though.

George, I was using 'new media' as a phrase itself, so was attaching singular verbs. I might have made some grammatical errors still, though. And I really appreciate print and old media, and the serious commitment serious journalists give. The great thing is we have more options to get at those incredible journalists. It takes more work, but it's worth the extra power.

Not everyone will buy into it and put in the required effort to be savvy. But I want to nudge them in that direction.

Fortunately, I believe that quality stuff will get noticed and come to the forefront, especially if there are dedicated folks - like those commenting here - that are fighting the good fight, despite any disagreements of form or style.

Skip said...

Rick - Are we the only non-journalists here? Jesse, I believe, has a journalism degree while George is one. Emily is certainly moving in that direction. Shane? Are you a journalist?

I am but a lowly IT geek.

I guess it takes all kinds.

Have a good weekend, Rick. I am going to go gloat some more over my victory in Simpsons Clue.