C:\COD> keepfakingit.com


C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/twestivals-org-structure-profiled-on-mashable/)
Posted by on the 9th of February, 2011 at 10:47 pm under media, social networks and Twestival.    This post has no comments.

Zachary Sniderman writes a colour piece profiling aspects of Twestival’s global organisational structure on Mashable today. Check it out, saves me detailing it here ;-).

With hundreds of events in 125+ countries, Rose can’t possibly monitor every dollar and every event taking place. Even the regional managers can be spread thin with the volume of events and local charities they need to manage. “When you put that trust out, that’s almost the payment, that’s the ‘salary’ that people are making on this,” said Cian O’Donovan, Twestival’s digital communications manager based in Ireland [the UK - my edit]. “I guess what I’m saying is, trust is [Twestival's] currency.”

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/zizek-to-new-green-chinese-in-five-links/)
Posted by on the 27th of January, 2011 at 1:50 pm under Commentary, media and sustainability.    This post has no comments.

Good start to the year, lots of doing but not so much reading. Here are a few articles that I have just cleared out of my Instapaper.

No better man than Slavoj Žižek to connect the dots between Wikileaks, Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight and the gentlemanly manners of the left. Really. Super essay from the London Review of Books.

From Gotham to Gotham. A little insight into one of Wall Street’s good guys (in his words – and it is Wall Street so I’m assuming masculinity), via John Cassidy’s New Yorker article.

Playing games for good, a Mashable round-up of video games for social good.

Writing of social, here is the big one. The Pew Internet report on The Social Side of the Internet. Hefty stuff and invaluable numbers for activists, campaigners and just about anyone running building community and interacting with groups online. Some standout numbers:

  • 48% of those who are active in groups say that those groups have a page on a social networking site like Facebook
  • 42% of those who are active in groups say those groups use text messaging
  • 30% of those who are active in groups say those groups have their own blog
  • 16% of those who are active in groups say the groups communicate with members through Twitter

Finally, I commented on the return of the food crisis recently and how the new hungry are recent migrants to cities. Some good news to prop up against that from Grist, China’s cities are breeding a new more environmentally aware generation, who are looking at the urban landscape surrounding them and not liking what they see. Let’s hope that’s a good thing.

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/net-activism-some-self-critique-required/)
Posted by on the 25th of January, 2011 at 10:42 pm under campaigning, communication and media.    This post has no comments.

This really is an incredibly impressive essay from Cory Doctorow. The best defence of online activism I think I’ve read. I’ve pasted the four closing paragraphs below. They are worth considering for a couple of reasons. First off, Evgeny Morozov’s The Net Delusion may be wide of the mark overall, but it is still worth pausing and reflecting that even in 2011, a tweet is unlikely to change the world, by itself. Though as I mentioned previously, tweets can of course lead to amazing things.

Second factor, if activists want to preserve open systems and net neutrality, we’re going to have to go out and fight for it. Doctorow points to mobile gateways which rather than opening the walled gardens of early century providers, seem to be stacking the razor-wire higher. The Mac App store will be followed quickly by content lock-ins if the newspaper industry can get their act together. And there lies the path of danger.

The world needs more people seriously engaged with improving the lot of activists who make use of the net (that is, all activists). We need to have a serious debate about tactics such as the Distributed Denial of Service – flooding computers with bogus requests so that they can’t be reached – which some have compared to sit-in demonstrations. As someone who’s been arrested at sit-ins, I think this is just wrong. A sit-in derives its efficacy not from merely blocking the door to some objectionable place, but from the public willingness to stand before your neighbours and risk arrest and bodily harm in service of a moral cause, which is itself a force for moral suasion. As a tactic, DDoS has more in common with filling a business’s locks with super glue, or cutting its phone lines – risky, to be sure, but closer to vandalism and thus less apt to convince your neighbours to look sympathetically on your cause.

We need to fix the mobile internet, which – thanks to closed networks and devices – is more amenable to surveillance and control than the fixed-line variety. We need to fight the move – driven by entertainment companies and IT giants such as Apple and Microsoft – to design devices to work covertly and without the consent of their owners in the name of protecting copyright.

We need to pay heed to Jonathan Zittrain (another scholar whom Morozov both dismisses and then later inadvertently agrees vigorously with), whose The Future of the Internet warns that the increase in crime, sleaze and fraud on the net will cause user fatigue and make people more willing to accept locked-down devices and networks that can be used to control, as well as protect them.

We need all of this, and a serious critique and roadmap for the future of net activism, because the world’s oppressive regimes (including supposedly free governments in the west) are availing themselves of new technology at speed, and the only way for activism to be effective in that environment is to use the same tools.

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/how-many-flood-victims-does-it-take-to-make-the-news/)
Posted by on the 11th of August, 2010 at 1:38 am under media and sustainability.    This post has 2 comments.

More than 14 million it would seem. It’s silly season, a particularly riveting one at that given we have Naomi Campbell coming live from the dock at the Hague*. So when a flood hits Pakistan, affecting 14,000,000 people, one would expect a few column inches devoted to drowning people and big numbers.  At the very least it’s an excuse of foreign correspondents to ride in helicopters without getting shot at. But it would seem all our action-hero reporters (bar the brilliant Orla Guerin) are on staycation this summer. Oh well.

Look, I’m not naive enough to think this sort of story is going to get airplay over the start of the football season or meditating toddlers. But, when a weather event affects more people that the Haiti earthquake and the 2004 Tsunami combined, well thats maybe an opportunity for the environmental, science or development editors in these news organisations to stick up a hand in the morning editorial meeting and say “hey, maybe there’s a story here”. Whether that story is climate change, population led resource issues or simply piss-poor local government, when the number on the other side is 14,000,000, it’s a big story.

Okay, since it is silly season, here’s a game you can play. See if you can find references to either Pakistan or flood in the oven-fresh homepages I’ve just baked below.

!!EDIT 12 August!!
Good meta-piece from CJR pulling together the coverage of this summer’s weather from around the world. This subject is being covered, is some good quality and depth, but not it would appear on the front-pages and in quantity.

* Big BTW, WTF was Nelson doing inviting Chuckie Taylor and Naomi Campbell around for dinner. Nelson Mandela! He can invite anyone on the planet over for a slap up meal and he chooses these goons. Another strike like that and it’s time for the Nobel recall time.

CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News
BBC News - Home
nytimes
telegraph
C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/in-your-reader-reading-your-feeds/)
Posted by on the 15th of March, 2010 at 7:06 pm under media, research and sustainability.    This post has no comments.

Keepfaking.it’s good friend Wouter asked us today for a few blogs and websites he might be interested in as part of some digital research he is engaged in. Far be it for us to get in the way of academic pursuit, and may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb as they say. Here’s a dump of relevant sections from our Google Reader account. Excuse errors and omissions. There are tons of stuff missing but seriously, don’t sweat it, if your website is absent it probably means we check it the old fashioned way. Anyways, who reads RSS anymore.

Stuff That Matters — General News

Stuff That Matters — Green Blogs + Opinion

Stuff That Matters — Activism|Climate Change

Stuff That Matters — Env Orgs + Corps

Stuff That Matters — Social | Activism

Stuff That Matters — COP 15

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/turning-off-the-spotlight-on-the-staging-of-global-terror/)
Posted by on the 3rd of January, 2010 at 3:35 pm under media and politics.    This post has no comments.
Childhood memories: The beard that rocked the cradle

Photo (cc) infomatique

Growing up a couple of hundred miles south of “The Troubles” in Ireland during the 80′s had its vagaries, which at this now twenty year vantage point, can hardly be believed, if recalled at all.

Whilst the closest we ever came to their tanks and their bombs and their bombs and their guns was the deplorable Dolores (who incidentally didn’t get much closer herself), we were of course witness to the media battle front. A battle conducted using the deadly weapons of voiceover. In their wisdom, the British government declared that like errant Victorian children, Gerry, Martin and the rest of their Sinn Féin/IRA cohort could be seen but not heard. Picture the scene, it’s the morning after the night before. Another tit-for-tat nationalist/loyalist killing (translation: straight-up murder) and UTV or BBC Northern Ireland is looking for a quote of either condemnation or abhorrence from Gerry or Martin. Well, they weren’t going to get it. No, Gerry would wag his beard up and down with some animated affectation, but all we in TV land would hear was a passionless fob-off and some gibberish about  Ian Paisley being neither a real doctor nor authentic reverend. Whatever.

[One suspects all of this may in fact have been a result of intense Westminster lobbying by the Ulster Voiceover Artists union (commonly referred to as the UVAu), but we have no proof of this whatsoever. ]

We are remided of this over the festive period whilst reading some more World at Risk
. Beck proposes a simple thought experiment relating to “global terror” [yes cringe, cringe]. What, asks the German sociolagist, would be the result of a worldwide media boycott of the flash points of global terror. You know, a total worldwide ban on reporting the latest antics of underpants arsonists (do you see what we’ve done there) or shoe bombers. We’ll leave you alone to answer that one.

For Beck argues that it is the now ever present anticipation of terror incident, rather than the incident itself that is the goal of this 21st century terrorism. And it is the “glamour of terror staged in the West which transform terrorism into a power drug.” Beck goes on, when dealing with the discources of global subpolitics, to suggest this power drug is now the developing world’s best narrative in which to fight economic globalization. Certainly the only one in which the media industrial complex of the West will pay constant attention to. Take away that attention and perhaps we’ll get some interesting results.

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/cop15-depends-how-you-define-meaningful/)
Posted by on the 19th of December, 2009 at 6:20 pm under copenhagen, media and sustainability.    This post has no comments.

Too busy working on the #stupidshow today to post any reaction or analysis on this morning’s non-agreement.

Here’s a screenshot that sums up some of the issues we’re facing as a society, and one of the many reasons COP15 has been so spectacularly unsuccessful at putting a binding agreement on the table.

BTW, tonight’s StupidShow has some great analysis from Ed Miliband, Prez Nasheed, Vicky Pope, Tony Juniper and Mark Lynas, who hadn’t slept in three days, and spent most of the night in the war room with Obama, Brown, Merkel and 20-something other world leaders.

The Shell Times

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/cop15-stupidshow-3-update-on-nations-and-numbers/)
Posted by on the 15th of December, 2009 at 12:15 pm under copenhagen, media and sustainability.    This post has no comments.

Here’s the state of play after yesterday’s sessions in the Bella Centre.

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/cop15-the-stupid-show-on-the-streets-of-copenhagen/)
Posted by on the 14th of December, 2009 at 11:09 pm under copenhagen, media and sustainability.    This post has no comments.

One of the jobs Keepfakingit is doing here in Copenhagen is assisting on The Stupid Show, a nightly news and opinion programme coming live from inside the Bella Centre. And on it there’s a segment that goes by the name of Piece of the Action. That’s the bit I’m involved in, scouring the streets of Copenhagen looking attempting to bring you a picture of the unbelievably diverse crowd that’s in town for the COP.

Here are some pics from the shoots.

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/behind-the-camera/)
Posted by on the 9th of November, 2009 at 12:14 am under media, media studies and social media.    This post has no comments.

Think about this next time you’re blown away by some citizen journalism.

From Paul Carr’s article on Techcrunch.

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/trafigura/)
Posted by on the 14th of October, 2009 at 6:48 pm under environment, media, research and sustainability.    This post has no comments.
From the Guardian

From the Guardian

I’m using the Trafigura / Ivory Coast / press gagging travesty of human decency as a case story tomorrow. It’s shocking how little attention this is getting in the main stream media. Here are my notes, I’ll add some opinion tomorrow.

The Guardian broke this in the UK so lots of links are from there.

Video
First off check out this video featuring Real Victims ® http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/sep/18/trafigura-ivory-coast-probo-koala

Ok, now for some background.

The Guardian publish this background on September 16th. Some highlights:

Trafigura trader James McNicol wrote from the firm’s Oxford Street office block: “This is as cheap as anyone can imagine and should make serious dollars … Each cargo should make 7m!!”

The plan was to buy a tanker load of dirty fuel, clean it on board, sell the good stuff and then Get rid of the slops.

Trafigura’s London head of gasoline trading, Leon Christophilopoulos, suggested a desperate remedy: a floating refinery: “I don’t know how we dispose of the slops and I don’t imply we would dump them, but for sure, there must be some way to pay someone to take them.”

The Probo Koala, was anchored off Gibraltar. Between April and June, it took three cargoes, each of 28,000 tonnes of contaminated gasoline [and cleaned them]. The Probo Koala’s spare tanks soon filled up with waste containing freshly created sulphur compounds.

The waste was shipped to Amsterdam where nobody would take it. So it set sail for the Ivory Coast. (Note: the Basel Ban, as well as the Bamako Convention, contains strict rules against the export of waste from developed to developing countries and according to Greenpeace clearly applies to this case.)

What followed was an environmental and human catastrophe.

The waste ended up being tipped all around Abidjan. It would have contained such unstable substances as mercaptans, mercaptides, sodium sulphide and dialkyl disulphides. Those living and working nearby risked burns, nausea, diarrhoea, loss of consciousness and death from contact with such compounds.

Thousands fell ill, the story broke locally and ultimately a case was taken against Trafigura:

As 31,000 Africans, many desperately poor, joined in an unprecedented group action for compensation organised by London lawyer Martyn Day, Trafigura tried repeatedly to give the impression that its ship had only pumped out ordinary slops from tank-cleaning: a completely different type of activity.

Trafigura settled with a £30m deal. That’s just under £1,000 per person involved.

The Guardian carry some details of the settlement here:

The settlement will cost Trafigura slightly more than 10% of its reported $440m (£270m) profits last year, and comes on top of the £100m the company had already previously paid the Ivorian government for a clean-up, also without conceding legal liability.

Hey, it’s like, 2009!

One of the big questions here is why is this only getting decent media coverage in the last month. The answer of course is lawyers.

This from the Financial Times:

The case cast an unaccustomed and uncomfortable light on a company that had until then enjoyed a low-profile existence as one of the world’s leading traders in commodities, including oil.

Trafigura has made heavy use of libel lawyers – including two defamation lawsuits and at least one court injunction – to combat coverage of the case, in which it continues to deny liability.

The company and Leigh Day & Co, lawyers for the Ivorians, reached their financial deal to settle allegations that the waste dumping had caused flu-like symptoms in people who were close to the site.

CSR: Letter to the Editor

This from the Guardian on 18th September.

The UN special rapporteur’s report on the conduct of Trafigura (Report, 17 September) raises serious issues about corporate conduct and accountability. Affected victims in Ivory Coast have waited long for an effective remedy. While acknowledging the nuances in a case like this, the company’s reported attempts to stifle the freedom of expression of civil society and the media have done a disservice to human rights and to all in business and beyond who have striven to improve standards.
John Morrison

Institute for Human Rights and Business

Is this kind of City-media-lawyer-we’ve-got-bigger-dicks-than-you shit even legal? We’re going to find out, Conservative Peter Bottomley thinks not.

According to (who else but) the Guardian, he told MPs he was reporting Carter-Ruck, to the Law Society, saying that no lawyers should be able to inhibit the reporting of parliament.

“I will be seeking their advice on whether it is proper for any lawyer to purport or intend to inhibit the reporting of parliament,” Bottomley told the Guardian.

“It is the job of the press to make aware to all what is known by a few. Any court action which inhibits that should be approved at a very high level, with full justifications, and in normal circumstances, should not be made in secret.”

And just to reassure us all, GB has called the case “unfortunate”. Yeah thanks Gordon. Just like how it’s going to be “unfortunate” you’ll be an ex-prime minister next June.

In terms of media discourse, the breaking of the court ordered gag is interesting. I’m not sure it’s altogether Earth shattering though. Here’s what Guardian supremo Alan Rusbridger has to say. Go read it yourself. I’ve got other things to worry about.

So the media were bound by the laws of the land and those that would abuse them. What about NGOs. As far back as September 2006 Greenpeace were all over this.. Here’s an interesting para from that press release:

One question is whether the wastes were entirely generated via on board operations. In a statement to the press the charterer Trafigura states that the caustic nature of the waste was from use of caustic soda as a detergent for tank washings. However given the rarity of using caustic soda to wash tanks that carry refined petroleum products, it is not unreasonable to consider that the waste could come from land based sources.

After the Ivory Coast government and Trafigura reached a deal on cleanup costs, but importantly not on compensation for victims or even an admittance of culpability, Greenpeace came back with more.

“One cannot do justice without knowing the facts in their entirety. At this stage, it would have been more appropriate to secure a provisional settlement with an advance payment, rather than one that closes the books definitively, especially when the full extent of liabilities have not yet been determined,” said Jasper Teulings, Senior Legal Counsel, Greenpeace International.

Although this settlement has no bearing on the legal rights of the victims of this disaster, it is feared that the victims will now receive little, if any, support from their government in pursuing justice.

“This Faustian deal may provide the Cote D’Ivoire the much-needed funds to deal with the clean-up, but it is by no means fair. Trade in hazardous waste is a serious crime under international law (2), and by agreeing to this deal, the President has signed away his country’s right to bring a criminal corporation to justice,” said Helen Perivier, Toxics Campaigner, Greenpeace International, “The ease with which international environmental laws are broken and questionable deals exchanged for real justice, painfully highlights yet again, that the international community creates laws but simply lacks the political will to implement and enforce them.”

And Greenpeace is continuing the fight to convict Trafigura of a crime. Something that has not happened anywhere yet. This from Reuters.

Trafigura for their part have a series of related press releases on their site. Headlines such as
“High Court confirms that Probo Koala ‘slops’ cannot have caused deaths, miscarriages, or other serious or long-term injuries”
and
“SETTLEMENT VINDICATES TRAFIGURA”
aim to tell their side of the story. No doubt Carter-Ruck will have signed those release off after careful inspection.

The ship

The ship

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/giving-britain-the-reboot/)
Posted by on the 2nd of July, 2009 at 2:10 pm under media, philanthropy and sustainability.    This post has one comment.

I’m going to be at the Reboot Britain conference in London on Monday.

Here’s the blurb:

It’s Time to Reboot Britain
An extraordinary one-day event which will take a totally different look at the challenges we face as a country and the new possibilities that – uniquely – this generation has to overcome them.

We face an unprecedented set of challenges: a decimated economy, ever increasing demands on our public services and trust in our political system at an all time low.

But instead of more pessimism, how can we begin to punch through the gloom and take advantage of the radically networked digital world we now live in to help revive our economy, rebuild our democratic structures and improve public services?

Here’s my personalized schedule

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/directing-digital-care/)
Posted by on the 14th of June, 2009 at 2:41 pm under media, sport and technology.    This post has no comments.

I work for Setanta Sports. Setanta at times is is a company much like a pubescent teenager. Big irregular growth spurts, co-ordinating different limbs can be tough, and every once in a while we’ll go and lock ourselves in our room until fresh investment arrives.

I’ll leave the bigger analysis to our friends in Media Guardian and Enders. They’re getting more right than wrong right now without help from this website.  Just one point on consumer relationships, a point that is in no way uniquely applicable to Setanta.

Here’s a role that every organization that relies on business-to-consumer relationships should have:

Director of Digital Care

With apolagies to my friends in marketing and PR who do a great job, this isn’t about you. This isn’t about “telling a story” or getting a message out. It’s about open ears and interfacing. Taking the message that’s out there and reacting. Read Frank Eliason’s full blog post for reasons why.

Right now there are thousands of conversations on Twitter, GetSatisfaction.com and DigitalSpy about every media brand under the sun. If as a brand we’re not listening, and even more importantly not empowering those we ask to listen, we simply cannont win. This is nothing to do with new technologies and everything to do with new respect for those who pay our wages, our customers.

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/trust-at-sxsw/)
Posted by on the 15th of March, 2009 at 3:57 pm under media, SXSW and trust.    This post has one comment.

We find patterns where we look for them in life. Right now I’m thinking an awful lot about trust, and how we emulate real world trust relationships online. So it’s not altogether surprising that trust emerged for me as the biggest theme on Saturday at SXSW.

Nobody nailed this better than Laurence Lessig in his talk entitled Change V2. Lessig claims he’s giving up the copyright war he’s been waging these past ten years in favour of a a bigger fight. Political campaign finance reform. Without the total overhaul of how politicians are funding their campaigns he claims. The thesis is pretty simple:

Dependencies weaken trust

Money /= False

BUT

Money breeds contempt

How does this apply to government? Lobbyists pay politicians, ostensibly for access rather than favours. The electorate knows this and assumes the worst. So the US is now in a situation where less than 20% of the population thinks that congress is doing a good job.

Lessig gave examples from the past 200 years of the Republic and stated his view that we are living in a less corrupt democracy than at any time in history. So this is Good Souls corruption in Lessig’s view. But perceived conflicts of interest are providing the contests that create doubt and these doubts breed the deadly meme.

The same situation exists within the world of medicine. Think MMR inoculations. GPs are perceived by their patients to be on the end of a  payola stick by big medicine. So no record number of parents  are forgoing jabs for their kids.

So with all that in mind Lessig says we need to removed the dependencies of K street and issue a Declaration FOR Independence. How: Citizens funding only of political campaigns.

In Google we trust

Charlene Li came back to the issue of trust in her talk on the Future of Social Networks. The first half of the talk I wondered why I’d made the mistake of sitting in. Inane observations that anybody in the audience could have made isn’t the reason I’m here. But Li did bust out a couple of nuggets near the end.

She argued that we’re on the brink of really stepping up our use of implicit social data to fill in gaps of closeness. Essentially one social network talking and communicating to others in order to know who are friends are and importantly, in what context they’re our friend.This makes sense. But here’s the rub. To do this Li claims we need a central trust fund. And who’s this going to be. Google.

I’m not so sure about this. Why will we suddenly start trusting Google, will it be implicit trust, or explicit. In other words will we trust them by default because they simply host more of our digital life than anyone else, or will we grab on to them as an OpenID supplier( or whatever trust ecosystem eventually emerges, I’m not so sure OpenID will be the one). Follow the money said our host and she gave the example of our banks, our government services, our stores are all starting to move onto the social web.

But let’s go back to Lessig. Money is not equal to false, but money breeds contempt. Will the migration of financial transactions and dependancies onto the social web breed the same DIStrust that exists in real life? Big question.

A follow up thought of my own from this goes something along these lines:

Online philanthropy is a booming business right now. From events like Twestival to startups like DonorsChoose and Kiva, there’s never been a better time to give, and to give online. But are there real dangers here that we miss the trust hooks when we’re setting up these new paradigms.

Tony Hsieh, CEO of Zappos (was it me or was this talk a geek infomercial) talked (super nervously) about happiness. Ho hum. But one interesting point on trust didn’t pass me my. Zappos are all about company culture and happiness in the workplace. In order to achieve this they place a super amount of trust in their entire workforce from warehouse floor to callcenter to finance department. And if you were to believe Hsieh it works.

Finally, the OpenSocial Stack, which I saw at both geek (code) and non-geek (IRL ideas) talks. Four of the five levels on the stack here have implications for trust. Think about it. Google already are.

Opensocial Stack

Opensocial Stack

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/the-future-of-radio/)
Posted by on the 14th of March, 2009 at 6:36 pm under media, social media and Uncategorized.    This post has 3 comments.

Radio time

Photo (cc) Maia C

The future of the medium, a digital strategy to implement now.

Radio isn’t sexy. Radio has never had a point release number added onto it. No such thing as Radio 2.0. When was the last time you heard a new radio station get VC funding. Actually, when was the last time you heard of a new radio station starting up at all. But radio is a remarkable medium having survived pretty much intact and on the same model for the past 50 years. Despite the hype of Last.fm and pandora, of podcasts and RSS, of satellite in the US and DAB in the UK, radio still exists and plays an important part in communities world wide.
But seismic change is enveloping the entire mediascape right now, not least of all because of massive advertising budget cuts. Here’s my take on why and how radio will have to adapt to changes in technology and more importantly its audience.

Before looking at radio exclusively in the digital space, I’m going to take a helicopter view on the situation right now.

To look at what’s happening to radio now let’s first take a look at radio as it emerged in the sixties the loser of a two decade battle with television. This was how Marshall McLuhan saw it in the Understanding Media, 1964.

One of the many effects of television on radio has been to shift radio from an entertainment medium into a kind of nervous informations system. News bulletins, time signals, traffic data, and, above all, weather reports now serve to enhance the native power of radio to involve people in one another. Weather is that medium that involves all people equally. It is the top item on radio, showering us with fountains of auditory space or lebensraum.

[And]

Radio affects most people intimately, person-to-person, offering a world of unspoken communication between writer-speaker and the listener. That is the immediate aspect of radio. A private experience. The subliminal depths of radio are charged with the resonating echoes of tribal horns and antique drums. This is inherent in the very nature of this medium, with its power to turn the psyche and society into a single echo chamber. The resonating dimension of radio is unheeded by the script writers, with few exceptions. The famous Orson Welles broadcast about the invasion from Mars was a simple demonstration of the all-inclusive, completely involving scope of the auditory image of radio. It was Hitler who gave radio the Orson Welles treatment for real.

The antithetic electric power of instant information that reverses social explosion into implosion, private enterprise into organization man, and expanding empires into common markets, has obtained as little recognition as the written word. The power of radio to retribalize mankind, its almost instant reversal of individualism into collectivism, Fascist or Marxist, has gone unnoticed, So extraordinary is this unawareness that it is what needs to be explained. The transforming power of media is easy to explain, but the ignoring of this power is not at all easy to explain. It goes without saying that the universal ignoring of the psychic action of technology bespeaks some inherent function, some essential numbing of consciousness such as occurs under stress and shock conditions.

[Here comes the payoff:]

Centralism of organization is based on the continuous, visual, lineal structuring that arises from phonetic literacy. At first therefore, electric media merely followed the established patterns of literate structures. Radio was released from these centralist network pressures by TV. TV then took up the burden of centralism, from which it may be released by Telstar [25 years before Sky launched this was a good guess, but really it was the internet that is doing this job - Cian]. With TV accepting the central network burden derived from our centralized industrial organization,  radio was free to diversify, and to begin a regional and local community service that it had not known, even in the earliest days of the radio hams.

Since TV, radio has turned to the individual needs of people at different times of the day, a fact that goes with the multiplicity of receiving sets in bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens, cars, and now in pockets. Different programs are provided for those engaged in diverse activities. Radio, once a form of group listening that emptied churches, has reverted to private and individual uses since TV. The teenager withdraws from the TV group to his private radio.

This natural bias of radio to a close tie-in with diversified community groups is best manifested in the DJ cults, and in radio’s use of the telephone in a glorified form of the old trunk-line wiretapping. Plato, who had old-fashioned tribal ideas of political structure, said that the proper size of a city was indicated by the number of people who could hear the voice of a public speaker. Even the printed book, let alone radio, renders the political assumptions of Plato quite irrelevant for practical purposes. Yet radio, because of its ease of decentralized intimate relation with both private and small communities, could easily implement the Platonic political dream on a world scale.

************

I’m not going to have to labour the point here that you have merely to replace ‘TV’ and ‘radio’ with ‘internet’ and ‘social networks/platforms’ at various junctures above to see we have transitioned into a new media age again. Neither am I going to labour the point that it’s TV that has lost more and has more to lose whilst radio continues to serve well the masters McLuhan writes of.

There’s another point arising from the above worth considering. TV took the responsibility and “radio was free to diversify”. Whether or not this diversification has continued apace over the 45 years since McLuhan wrote this is irrelevant. We’re now at an end of history juncture in media evolution where all media is being forced to evolve, or die. Audience migration to other media, general falling advertising revenues and stale formats all play a part here. But let’s not dwell overly long on the past.

************

Current radio landscape
Okay, so we know where we’ve come from. Let’s take a look at the current radio landscape and

Radio does an awesome job of building relationships between listener and presenter. In the listener’s view this comes down the mainline. One to one. And great relationships are always built on the same thing; trust.

To see just how important this trust is lets take an example of trust failure. The Sachs / Ross /  Brand incident. I’ll leave for now the fact that the original airing didn’t produce a single letter of complaint and it was only after other media outlets picked up the story it snowballed.  [http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/oct/27/russell-brand-jonathan-ross-andrew-sachs-calls]
No, the interesting angle is that Ross and Brand pulled their prank on on radio. Would it have produced the same reaction on TV? I suggest that on TV we would have seen the footage aired back to back for a news cycle or two. And then? Then the news editors become interested in something else. But the relationship, the trust we have with our radio hosts, is very different. We invite them in to our space, one on one, and nobody wants that space violated in this way. It wasn’t just Ross and Brand leaving voice mails, we were all collaborators and we didn’t like how that made us feel ultimately.

[As an aside it's interesting to note that during the his enforced sabbatical Ross became one of the planet's most followed Twitterer. More on this some other time.]

************

If this were a full on research piece I’d be forced to bring more examples to the table, it’s not and I don’t have time right now. So onwards.

Let’s take the step into tomorrow’s world. With us we’re taking a (pseudo) one-to-one relationship between the radio and the audience. Singular. So let’s survey the new digital world we’re entering. A few notes and buzzwords if you’ll permit me.

************

Facets of future radio

  • First of all it’s distributed – it’s anywhere you like
  • It’s post-scarcity – the means of receiving content/information/communication/media is not limited by atoms (Like it was when we pressed music onto plastic discs), or even airwaves.
  • It’s always on – ditto
  • It’s hot in here – because it’s really really crowded. With content creators and content users and it’s hard to tell these guys apart.
  • It’s noisy in here too – ditto
  • It’s remix ready – Somebody younger and smarter than you is going to take your media and pass it on to someone else in ways you never imagined. You may as well make it as easy as possible.
  • It’s a bit like a cult – Yep, everybody just wants to say hello. And we don’t care if you have

************

The future of news organizations.
Adapt or die. Emily Bell recently described ITV as belonging to a “Sunset industry”. It is unlikely the broadcaster can survive the current recession without significant change, and it is questionable whether they can implement that change quickly enough.

Whereas the BBC, for all it’s “scandals” and “-gates” has managed to do something revolutionary. It has, though the wildly successful I-Player, turned itself into a platform. Yes it still produces world class content, but it now has an end to end distribution solution for all of this content too. The value of that can’t be valued.

Commentators such as Jeff Jarvis have been long telling all old media outlets to drop the commodity content and focus on the differentiators. For newspapers this means this means letting go of glamours foreign bureau and putting more resources on the local beat. Big media has started to listen; the New York Times last month announced a hyper local initiative with bloggers and reporters stationed throughout the cities five boroughs and in surrounding states. Over the past couple of years Guardian News and Media (GNM) has been slowing acquiring and partnering with leading blogs in order to bring specialist content and expertise under the Guardian.

And this week GNM took the brave step of opening up ALL it’s databases: news; demographics; statistics etc. to any potential third party application developers. They have an unproved advertising revenue model backing this up which may or may not bring in serious cash, either way it’s a revolutionary move. Whether it pays or not GNM have reacted quickly and boldly to the changing outputs (distribution, audience etc.) that the IT revolution has brought us.

************

Audience
Let’s bring this back to audience.
Radio’s job is to engage audience, engender trust thus keeping the listener tuned in and  bringing the audience back regularly. A radio station is that familiar comfort zone a listener can go to.
What can a radio do in the digital space to back this mission up. Can it offer the same services, the same comfort zone? Where the answer to these questions is no, can it drive audiences to places where

Up until now a radio producer has dealt with easy one way flows of information.
The talent speaks down from on high and the listeners have two choices and the second one is turn the dial. Sure phone-ins and texts, emails and letters have their place. But in all of these the producer or talent act as gatekeeper. They control the flow both ways.
All of this has changed.
Using realtime tools like Twitter and Facebook status, listeners can now self organize. They can take the conversation

If radio stations don’t tap into this information ecosystem the talent is reduced to the role of conversation starter. The answer? I can’t tell you, but it will involve both the talent and the station becoming part of their listeners’ social graphs. They will be deeply integrated into this new ecosystem. And a conversation in this space doesn’t end at 7pm when the drivetime slot turns into the SportsNight. The conversation is 24/7. Or at least 7-23. Are radio stations ready to play under these rules. They’d want to be. Can they take part in an audience relationship that’s listener-to-listener and not talent-to-listener.

The big paradigm shift producers are going to have to deal with is two way communication. you have to talk back to stoke the trust engine

There are some facts we should keep in mind. Content. The great reliables in life; taxes and death. These are still the subjects “listeners” will engage in. They’ll simply engage wherever the barrier to entry is lowest. There’s room, and a distribution platform for niche, but the big issues remain just that, big
And let’s also remember that not everybody out there wants to be involved in a global discussion. There is still an appetite for expert opinion presented professionally. In fact as the hum of the crowd (in places like Twitter) grows, the need for the professional content, clearly identifiable as such, grows. So give the people what they want.

************

Filters
On the subject information overload, of modern media which is cheap, globally distributed and always on, Clay Shirkey suggests we don’t have a problem with too much media, merely difficulty filtering it. Our traditional filters were newspaper editors and radio producers.
As we bypass these forms of media we lose an important buffer. Many of us are now utterly swamped. I have hundreds of songs lined up in iTunes and Last.fm I’ve never listened too and never will. I have podcasts downloaded that will never be synced to my mp3 player. I’ve got 15,000 articles in my RSS feed reader that presents me with a chronological impossibility.

Linear radio offers a wonderful reprieve from this constant barrage. When I turn on the Today programme in the morning I’m trusting that the Oxbridge educated editors and researchers have programmed a breakfast’s worth of topical and insightful content for my consumption. It’s the only time of the day many of us are now letting these decisions be made by others.

There are a number of example of automated filtering services online that are based on recommendation and database “intelligence”. Last.fm/pandora for music [automated]. Digg taps the wisdom of the (mostly tech) crowd [human].

I would argue that the radio producer is already one of the media ecology’s best filters. From Jimmy Saville to John Kelly, the DJ too is an original filter and filterer. There is a natural role here for radios to play in being society’s live content filterer.

************

Remix culture - beyond the airwaves
It has never been easier to take existing cultural artifacts, songs, images, video, and combine them to create new culture. Dangermouse’s Grey Album (the worlds of Jay Z, the music of the Beatles) is the oft-name-checked pinnacle of this remix culture. It could be argued that 2008 was the year of the remix presidential campaign; Obama Girl could never have been created by a campaign themselves, but when mixed and remixed by amateurs.

The same remixing culture has taken hold on websites and databases all over the internet. Flickerverse.com was a personal favorite. It took photos uploaded on Flicker, peeks at their geo-tags and maps them in realtime on a Google Map of the world, sadly it is no more. Twitterverse does the same for tweets against geographical location.

Can we mash-up real radio stations. What would that look like?
Radio stations touch local communities. Police forces and media outlets all over the world are starting to produce Google Maps mashups of crime data against city maps. Does a news and talk based radio format have a job to do here. Can it in fact own this data (ownership in the curatorial sense).

Visualize, Visualize Visualize.
This may sound counter intuitive for a radio station. But open source data and the open APIs of visualization tools have led to a new wave of online services. Here’s a map of Chicago crime data. Surely this is something local radio should be all over.
(Check this map of Twitter conversations about the Superbowl out). And remember, these services aren’t necessarily there for on-air talent to direct.

Questions:

  • Can a radio station OWN some of these services within its “broadcast area”?
  • Radio is part of the fourth estate. The four estate’s job is in part to keep an eye on the third estate?
  • Is there a job to do to aggregate politicians’s expenses, blogs, twitter accounts. Keep an eye on them all?

************

So some practical suggestions if you reached this far

All I wanted was some website advice?
I haven’t  spent much time thinking why someone would want to go to a radio website. I love radio. I never go to radio websites unless it’s to listen live or on demand.
Ten years ago we would have stuck a picture of DJ BigShot on the front page and had another page devoted to him. And nobody who ever visited it would ever go back. And most galling of all a design and build agency would have walked away with a decent sum of money for their brochure-ware.

Can we do something smarter that that around the talent? Instead of using the website as a shop window let’s use it as a set of open doors. Let’s figure a way to start the relationship. Or rekindle the relationship.

One of the best examples I’ve seen of this in recent times is Stephen Fry’s ClubFry page. This isn’t his homepage. And it’s a lot more than a shop window. Fry has flung the doors open and is asking people to come inside. He’s opening himself up in as many ways possible, with twitter, with replies, with email newsletters, with podcasts, with photostreams. And he’s done this using existing networks that his audience are already on.

Another interesting campaign recently is Skittles. The crunchy chewy confectionary ditched their website entirely and instead pointed the URL skittles.com at various web 2.0 sites. These included a Twitter search page on the phrase “skittles” to the newly created Facebook Group page on Facebook itself. This was Skittle telling their customers, we dwell amongst you, not on an artificial construct you have no interest in visiting. The online equivalent of running a radio show from Bewleys café perhaps.

************

Conclusions
This piece is long enough as it is. Drawing up practical applications to the ideas discussed here will take up twice the space.

  • Radio CEOs and owners can’t hide from a digital strategy of some sort. The format, audience demographics and geography are going to dictate the size and scope of this to some extent. Taking wallpaper But there are some clear directions imo.
  • Radios can become content filters. Their websites can play important roles in telling people where the best, most important content is.
  • Visualizations and mashups of crime and of happiness indexes.
  • Listening to our audience. How can we aggregate their discussion better. I’m thinking of the like of Seesmic etc. here.
  • Google. How are users finding the radio station. The content. can google drive this.
    Or live twitter search. Live search is being billed by people like Batelle as key. And it ties really well into radio.
    Interesting idea here. Radio stations can have twitter feeds that are meant ONLY to capture search, not friends for ego-following’s sake.
  • Radio website should aggregate the personalities, not brochure-ware them. Like stephen Fry’s twitter page.
  • Radio’s don’ need websites to communicate with their audience. They need digital strategies and friend feed / skittles type things

Future of Radio: We assume relationships and communication between radio and audience. My big question to the radio industry is what is your role in the relationship between your audience and your audience.

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/trust-the-basis-of-causewired/)
Posted by on the 6th of March, 2009 at 7:34 am under media, philanthropy, research, technology and trust.    This post has no comments.

There’s a trust deficit in society. Technology can play and is playing a huge role in rectifying this.

I’ve just read Causewired by Tom Watson. The book is Watson’s attempt to summarize the current state of play in the world of online philanthropy, social causes and network based social action organization. Plugging In, Getting Involved, Changing the World as the tag line suggests.

I’ve a lot more to come about the subjects Watson tackles but right now I’m going to take on the subject of trust, particularly in light of the last two posts on this site concerned as they are with Digital Britain and Modern Liberty. There’s a gaping trust void in society right now. Our government clearly don’t trust us and in the midst of a  recession the likes of which none of us have know before there’s a danger that society fragments and turns away from the most needy, and from the most grave causes.

The central thesis of Watson’s book is this:

New Technology and the human urge to communicate will create the basis for a golden age of activism and involvement, increasing the reach of philanthropy and improving the openness of politics, democratic government and our major social institutions.
[BUT, working against this is the current global recession. Governments are running into budget shortfall and cutting spending in all social areas.]

So, just as our governments are failing us by cutting back on spending that increase social cohesion, we are coming up the the technology and the ideas to bind ourselves together in social economies without our governments’ help. I’m going to have to leave my reaction to government responses here to another post, needless to say it’s a big issue.

Whether our governments get it right with initiatives like Digital Britain, Watson’s point is that there’s a whole ton of people in the doing-something-that-matters space that aren’t waiting for their government. And why should they. Private (and open source) enterprise has given an historically unprecedented number of people the tools and inspiration to take action in a whole host of fields.

For now I want to take a look at some of studies in Causewired and see how they are tackling matter of trust.

What technology is allowing us do

A quick overview of what this technology is allowing us to do is in order. Watson’s beat is online philanthropy. That means free giving. And by free I mean free as in speech, not beer. Giving of one’s own volition. So who’s giving and who’s getting? Watson hones in on some prime time examples: DonorsChoose, Fundable, Kiva and Facebook Causes.

Each a very different application or platform but some bigtime shared attributes and functions, not least of which in my view is the way trust is leveraged, certainly in the case of the first three if not quite so strongly with Causes. For those not familiar with these companies it’s worth clicking the above links and checking their about pages real quick. In all of these examples Watson is showing us that the abstraction between the giver and receiver in a philanthropic situation is being removed. If I use DonorsChoose to donate textbooks to classrooms I know what text books and what school is involved. If I loan money with Kiva to a person or project in a developing world country chances are I have a photo and story behind the whole deal. The personalization and directness strengthens the sense of empathy with in turn cranks up the trust motor.

How is this being achieved

Watson highlights the transition from anonymity to real identity on the social web as key.
From Charles Leadbeader in We Think: Freedom is a slippery idea, but I believe that the web will be good for freedom of expression in four respects.

  • The freedom to think what we like, to form and express ideas independently
  • The freedom to shape our identities, to be who we want to be
  • The freedom as consumers to choose and buy what we want
  • The freedom to express ourselves through creating things that matter to us.

It isn’t a big leap of logic to suppose that for freedom to exist within a social space the atmosphere of that space must be made up of a large dose of trust. Example: I am only free if I trust my cohabitants to obey the rules of the social space and  thus not impinge upon my freedom. The future threat of the curtailment of freedom may in itself act as that very curtailment.

But freedom within an environment is not enough within itself. After all, if a user can have a trust based relationship only within a closed space how can a movement or cause grow. The trust relationship must expand. That may mean the expansion of the [closed] environment or it may mean the migration of the users and their attached trust outside the environment.

From an interview with Causes’ Sean Parker Watson tells us turning users into propagators is key.

“Deliberate viral engineering, how you turn your users into propagators through careful optimization was very important “

This is illustrated in another case study,  Kiva, the developing world online loan agency. By allowing users to help many causes and many users to help each cause there’s a natural urge for donors to tell more people to donate to their cause and see their cause succeed. Watson likens this to a child collecting baseball cards.

Watson isn’t afraid to be a little cynical in illustrating his point when he mentions the black tie ball philanthropy that continues to pull in big money in New York. Being seen at the ball is a big part of the play.

Causes do not spread just because they are good, they spread because people spread them. This seems simple and rather obvious but it is the secret sauce behind the rise of all the online social networks. In short, people like being asked nicely by other people they know to do things for them; that request validates the relationship.

Bringing all this back to trust

One of the most important observations Watson brings to the table in Causewired is this:

Optimism is inherent in people. Consumers will switch brands for causes, particularly young consumers.

Exampe: Every summer Coke and Pepsi go head to head with youth orientated promotions. Collect 20 bottle tops and get a free iTunes voucher. How about if these were led by social causes instead of iTunes giveaways.

83% of Americans say that companies have a responsibility to help support causes and 87% would switch from one brand to another if the other brand is associated with a good cause.

That’s a lot of brand loyalty simply migrating because of people’s innate desire to “do the right thing”. This highlights a couple of glaring facts:

  1. The online social philanthropy space is potentially huge
  2. Our governments need to be in there getting a piece of the action

Let’s bring this back to trust again. It’s natural to wonder why governments don’t take on this job of turning users into propagators of key services. The private sector is now shining some big fat arc lights down this road, it shouldn’t be hard for our public services to start taking some big steps here. It’s also natural to wonder what we can do to reduce the trust deficit that exists between the government and the rest of us (as outlined here). It our governments aren’t going to trust us on some big issues right away, the least that can be done is the services and applications be put in place so we can trust each other. Then let us do the hard work.

Conclusions

Whilst researching this article I came across this piece by Tom Watson.

…on one hand, people are ever more conscious of philanthropy and its role in commerce and society; on the other, these people are talking to each other more so than ever before.

If you keep talking you can change the world right? And now talk is cheap, easy and global. In theory the more we talk, the more we get to know each other and empathize, the more we trust. In the UK right now the government, through Lord Carter’s Digital Britain report, is attempting to map out the digital future. It believes at the end of this future there is a Digital Dividend, the spoils of which will greatly benefit all of society. Lord Carter could do worse than spend a few hours reading Causewired and learning how that dividend is already being created.

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/digital-britain-liberty/)
Posted by on the 1st of March, 2009 at 12:44 am under media, politics and technology.    This post has 4 comments.

There’s two massively important movements taking place right now in Britain, here are some important connections between them. I’ve already written a little about the Digital Britain interim report but more importantly Charles Leadbeater has written a lot and put it all together in a handy portable pdf. Download it here.

The original report either isn’t aware of, or Lord Carter, it’s author, didn’t have the balls to ask some big questions. Leadbeater does. There’s far to many to list here, go read the document, however I will highlight one important conclusion.

It strikes me, as it has done Leadbeater, that the government on the one hand is proposing what they think is an ambitious drive to take the UK’s new media industry and infrastruture forward into the next quarter century. Yet they don’t want to involve us, the public. Moreover, they patently don’t trust us.

Reading Digital Britain one cannot help but feel the government finds the opportunities for people to self-organise through the web all too unsettling for its more technocratic, controlling tendencies. Digital Britain conveys none of the excitement that many young people feel about the world of semi-structured free association that mutual media is creating. This interim report, written behind closed doors in an era of open communications, is little more than piece of space filling to persuade us the government has a vision for the future when in reality it seems to have none, at least not yet. (A model of what can be done, even in government, is the parallel The Power of Information report, which is fully of exciting recommendations for how government can open up its information for citizens to use in novel ways. )

The government say that the UK must be allowed compete with the most advanced nations on Earth and to do this we must have an advanced IT infrastructure. But to use an advanced infrastructure, to create an advanced infrastructure, we must have entrepreneurs, thinkers, dreamers and digital literates. And they must be given tools and those tools imparted with trust.

– –

This basic mistrust of us the people is the reason the Convention on Modern Liberty not only happend this weekend, but was much needed. What could have been another umbrella demo by the SWP and their ilk has the potential to be a real political movement. Here’s why.

Henry Porter quotes David Cameron in today’s Observer. Scarily I agree with him:

“When academics look back on Labour’s time in power,” he said, “the erosion of our historic liberties will surely be one of its most defining, and damning, aspects. Things we have long thought were part of the fabric of liberty in this country – such as trial by jury, habeas corpus with strict limits on the time that people can be held without charge, the protection of parliament against intrusion by the executive – have been whittled away.”

And Nick Clegg from the same article is a little less dramatic but a little more on point:

“We are the most spied-upon country in the developed world, with a million innocent people’s DNA on a criminal database, more surveillance cameras than anywhere in the world, parents snooped on by council officials checking up on where children spend the night, and ceaseless attempts by government to limit our freedom of expression. That’s why the work of the Convention on Modern Liberty is so important in highlighting the liberties we have lost and inspiring a new alliance in Britain to take our freedoms back.”

Both of these quotes go back to the trust issue. Nobody highlighted this issue better than Philip Pullman in his address to the convention. If Clegg highlighted the problems above, Pullman took the higher road and asked us what sort of society we WANT to live in. For if we don’t know the answer to that what have we got to complain about and what have we to aim at.
Courage, virtue, intellectual curiousity, modesty and honour are five big optimistic virtues that are pulled out and analyzed. You won’t find me arguing.

Just imagine for a moment a nation with the courage, with the modesty, with a simple wakeful clarity of mind that are so
near at hand, so easy to find, if only we knew. Imagine a government that trusted the people who elected it. Imagine agencies of the state that regarded the people’s privacy as something it was the state’s duty to guard, rather like the value of their money and the historic individuality of their town centres and their freedom to speak and write as they like. Imagine a nation that cherished these things as a kind of natural blessing, something obviously good that needed no justification, something like sunshine or kindness or clean water. Or honour.

Now what have these things to do with freedom and the threats to freedom we have been hearing about today? What has the virtue of delight to do with virtue of liberty. Everything. A nation whose laws express fear and suspicion cannot sustain delight for very long; joy does not flourish in the garden of anxiety. The society these laws seem to be designed to bring about is one of institutionalised paranoia of furtive hatred and low-level panic, every scrap of delight and gladness we can find is a blow against that fear; every instance of civility and kindness we come across is a clean wind dispersing a foul vapour. Every example we cherish of imaginative play, of the energy of creation and of the enchantment of art and the wonder of science is a weapon in the arsenal and I say weapon, advisedly: we have a fight on
our hands. “I will not cease from mental fight”, said William Blake, and this is the fight he meant. The fight to defend, to restore, and to sustain the virtue which is not now but could so easily be, the natural behaviour of the state.

We are a better people than our government believes we are; we are a better nation.

That really is a big concept yet one that you won’t find on the manisfesto for government of any of the major parties. At least not yet you won’t. That could change.

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/full-digital-britain-breakfast/)
Posted by on the 25th of February, 2009 at 1:37 am under media.    This post has one comment.

I was at the NESTA hosted Digital Britain debate this morning. The format was unimaginative; Jonathan Kestenbaum – NESTA CEO – gave the intros and moderated, Lord Carter – Minister for Communications, Technology and Broadcasting – had the floor to himself for 15 minutes and then Neil Berkett, Virgin Media CEO and Peter Bazalgette, former Endemol big man, joined in and took some audience responses. And a single twitter question.
The full podcast of the event is here so feel free to make up your own mind on proceedings.

Just a couple of thoughts to round out the day.
Carter and Berkett both took a standard government/regulator line and private sector line respectively. Bazelgette took a more thoughtful approach and added some genuine insight, particularly in the area of content. More of this please Peter.

Both Nico MacDonald and Charlie Leadbeater sought to bring from the floor end-users into the debate but didn’t get very far. That was a real shame as it’s a glaring omission from the interim report. Hopefully one that will be rectified by the time the final missive is assembled.

Burkett’s 100Mbps Virgin deal will continue to be nothing but a fat pipe dream to millions, so let’s not get distracted by ISPs’ continued fluffy marketing claims.

The concept of a digital dividend was raised and alluded to at length. This struck me as a dangerous concept. A divided is a payout on shares when times for a company are good. A means by which to reward the shareholders. In this context it sounds like Carter and company are suggesting that by merely building infrastructure and bringing in human capital we’ll reap rewards. This is patently ridiculous. We still need the original content, the services and the entrepreneurial activity to sit on top of the infrastructure to turn investment into reward. A Digital Britain is not an end in itself. There’s no easy dividend coming out of any of these initatives and this language to my mind is going to do nobody any good.

Other interesting bits and bytes: the BBC to become an open platform in ten years, 50Mbps broadband for all within the several and a what-if there was government funding for local public micro-content creators. If that happens we’ll all be reaping the Digital dividend.

Anyway, go watch the video. Or even better, download and read the report. And of course check out the twitter back channel that took place during the discussion.


–Edit

I’m reminded by this post from @anomymoustom that a robust look at privacy is a huge omission from the interim report. But then it’s been a huge omission from any legislation the the current UK government have been responsible for over the past 12 years. So no surprises there.

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/communication-on-climate-change/)
Posted by on the 5th of February, 2009 at 12:22 am under media and sustainability.    This post has no comments.

I could have put this into the last post but I felt it was worth giving it some breathing space. Bud Ward, the well known climate change communicator, has put together a short book on closing the gap between science and media.

Here’s the table of contents:

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Revisiting ‘A Discernible Human Influence,’ Benjamin D. Santer

2. BACKGROUND AND NATURE OF THE WORKSHOPS
Science to Media: Catch-Up to, But Don’t Get Ahead of, the Science, Anthony Broccoli

3. SCIENCE FOR JOURNALISTS
Scientific Education of Climate Science Writers through Pedagogical Use of Artful Sound Bites, Jerry Mahlman

4. JOURNALISM FOR SCIENTISTS
‘Mediarology’ – The Role of Climate Scientists in Debunking Climate Change Myths, Stephen H. Schneider
Hot Words, Andrew C. Revkin

5. WHAT JOURNALISTS CAN DO
The Local Story on Climate Change is a Critical One, Bruce Lieberman
Why We Don’t Get It, Peter Dykstra
Climate Scientists and Climate ‘Skeptics’: Deciding Whom to Trust, Richard C. J. Somerville

6. WHAT SCIENTISTS CAN DO
Airing Someone’s Video? Probably Airing Their Soundbites, Too? Not So Fast, Jeff Burnside
Science in a Postoperative Newsroom, Jeffery DelViscio

7. WHAT INSTITUTIONS CAN DO
What are Children Being Taught in School about Anthropogenic Climate Change? Kim Kastens and Margaret Turrin
Credentialing for Reporters Covering Complex Issues? Jim Detjen
Shared Values of Science and Journalism: Opportunities for Improvement, Anthony D. Socci

8. NEWS EXECUTIVES MEET WITH SCIENTISTS

CJR.org does a better job of reviewing this pamphlet than I ever will so check it the review and then go download the entire pamphlet from the Metcalf Institute for Marine & Environmental Reporting.

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/climate_change_media/)
Posted by on the 4th of February, 2009 at 11:56 pm under economics, media and sustainability.    This post has no comments.
from the NY Times

from the NY Times

Two related pieces in the Columbia Journalism Review over the past week on energy, climate change and the press’s role in covering the issue. And in my mind it is one issue, not two. This is a great example of what makes CJR such a great resource.
They have the ability to step back and look at the media landscape as it pertains many subjects in politics and finance asking the questions of journalists and bloggers that we don’t ask ourselves enough.

Curtis Brainard pulls apart pieces from the Pew Research Center, the NY Times, the LA Times and PBS. His thesis, that it may now makes sense for journalists to pull back from making planet saving proclamations in support of climate change action and instead frame the discourse around helping keep the pennies in the pocket of Joe the Plumber and other downstream media consumers.
Brainard pulls through some useful looking data from Revkin in the NY Times illustrating this. The fact of the matter is that people have bigger financial worries all of a sudden. In Brainard’s words:

A poll released last week by the Pew Research Center found that addressing the nation’s energy problems ranks sixth among a list of twenty voter concerns, with sixty percent of those polled agreeing that it should be a “top priority” for government. On the other hand, concern for protecting the environment and dealing with global warming has declined precipitously in the last few years, with those issues ranking seventeenth and dead last, respectively. The takeaway message for journalists is that those “stewardship” frames will not be sufficient in terms of galvanizing support for clean energy. In the pursuit of public engagement, the press would be better advised to link sustainability issues to economic growth and “green” jobs.

There’s plenty of other good shout-outs in the piece but here’s the real take-away:

The economics of sustainability is clearly a frame that is of particular interest to readers and audiences these days. Nova spends relatively little time discussing the impacts of global warming, which are presented only as contextual background. Though there remain many points of climate science that the media can and should explore, this seems a positive development because it implies that the press has accepted the basic threat of warming and is now prepared to address the cost and feasibility of various solutions

So far so good (perhaps). Brainard returns to a similar theme a few days later on CJR.org. Now here’s the really interesting part from my perspective.

One of the things that history will remember about the coverage of climate change is that, not unlike the Iraq War, the press itself became an important part of the story, largely due to faulty reporting at its outset….But, as CJR contributing editor Cristine Russell pointed out in a recent feature story, the fine points of science and technology must now be communicated to the political and business reporters who have been assigned to the coverage of climate solutions.

There’s no arguing that our business reporters need to know these points inside out. In fact, more importantly, the men and women inside the Treasury making the decisions these reporters report on need to know the facts. But all that doesn’t hide a big question that arises from the above thesis. Should be we be allowing the business pages abstract the world’s climate change problems into a more palatable, or certainly more applicable, problem for our media consumers. In other words should we concentrate on a set of self-centered reasons and try change human behaviour by appealing to people’s financial interests?

Many would argue that the end justifies the means, and in the case of climate change the situation is so dire and so urgent that we can dismiss only a very few options. But the media  has a role to tell it like it is. To inform us that our actions and in action are having a direct and catastrophic impact on the world. If an Obama stimulus promotes green jobs and clean tech all the better, but let’s keep the climate change horse running in front of the economic cart.

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/the-man-works-for-me-and-you/)
Posted by on the 2nd of February, 2009 at 12:10 am under media and politics.    This post has no comments.

I don’t work for the government (they work for me). But if I did I’d have been at UK Government barcamp at the weekend. My good friend Faheyr was there though and his overview is must-read material if you, like me, are all about open government, killing abstraction and simple transparency. Go check it out now.

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/more-news-from-the-wiki-frontline/)
Posted by on the 28th of January, 2009 at 12:52 am under media and social media.    This post has no comments.

If I take the trouble to write up some basic thoughts on Wikipedia and Britannica you know only one thing can happen. Yeah, within a week they both announce they’re changing their knowledge models. Kind of.

The great Brit is turning wiki (again, kind of) and Jimmy Wales has proposed building some editorial decision gates into Wikipedia.

IT World carries this:

A version of this policy, called Flagged Revisions, is in place at the German-language Wikipedia.

The decision to test Flagged Revisions on the flagship English-language Wikipedia was prompted by changes to the entries of U.S. senators Edward Kennedy and Robert Byrd that incorrectly stated the men had died.

“This nonsense would have been 100 percent prevented by Flagged Revisions,” wrote Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales in his “user talk” page.

A poll of Wikipedia users showed that 60 percent support applying Flagged Revisions to certain entries, according to Wales. Contributions would be held for approval at most for one week, but ideally “a lot less,” he wrote, adding that Flagged Revisions will be tried out “for a time-limited test.”

My take: Great move by EB. They add some small amount of user contribution/suggestion and an old brand is suddenly brought bang up to date (in its own eyes). For WP though it’s a little more uncertain. Is Wales acting like the father of a teenager who has come to realise  his progeny has a mild case of ADD and is searching for some meds to calm things down? Looks like it, he better make sure those pills have been FDA approved.

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/why-therell-always-be-podcasts/)
Posted by on the 7th of January, 2009 at 11:37 pm under media and music.    This post has no comments.

As a follow up to my X=Mass mix special I thought I’d post up a link to ED DMX’s blog which has the makings of a brilliant podcast series. Ed’s clearly got too much time on his hands right now but don’t feel bad, it’s a win-win situation for us.

Ed’s been around to his Mum’s house and grabbed a handful of his favourite 80′s and 90′s techno and electro records from the attic. And they’re bangers. Highlights include Joey Beltram, 808 State and be sure to check out Freeez’s IOU, the Arthur Baker produced ’83 gem which comes up second on the third show.

The tunes are broken up by Ed’s monotone telling us just how much pocket money he had to save for each 12″. It really is super stuff and is exactly why these sort of Podcasts will always have a future. Tightly produced, well packaged media with a personnal slant is a winner every time. Especially if the songs are this good.

And thanks to @shitsock for the link.

edit

What am I thinking, content will always be king right?

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/us-now-comments/)
Posted by on the 16th of December, 2008 at 6:06 pm under film, media and social media.    This post has no comments.

I attended a NESTA related screening of Us Now,  last week. Despite featuring George Osbourne and Ed Milliband it presented a pretty optimistic vision of a future-present in terms of “the power of mass collaboration, government and the internet”.

Here’s the feedback, collated by hand on paper handouts. Kind of old school for a documentary about collaborative networks. Mine’s on slide 10 I think.

There are lots of clips from the really well shot film available here.

And just to get all 2.0, here’s my immediate reaction:

twitter feed of UsNow conversation

twitter feed of UsNow conversation

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/tv-and-empathy-in-us-politics/)
Posted by on the 6th of September, 2008 at 1:31 pm under media and Uncategorized.    This post has no comments.

Interesting article in today’s NYTimes by Judith Warner. It’s largely a critique on the Republican Party and how the selection of Sarah Palin is a regressive step for the advancement of women. Well and good. Here’s the interesting part though. TV has flip flopped the situation whereby a candidate no longer needs to be able to empathize with his constituents, instead, the voters must feel a connection with the candidate.

One of the worst poisons of the American political climate right now, the thing that time and again in recent years has led us to disaster, is the need people feel for leaders they can “relate” to. This need isn’t limited to women; it brought us after all, two terms of George W. Bush. And it isn’t new; Americans have always needed to feel that their leaders were, on some level, people like them.

But in the past, it was possible to fill that need through empathetic connection. Few Depression-era voters could “relate” to Franklin Roosevelt’s patrician background, notes historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. “It was his ability to connect to them that made them feel they could connect to him,” she told me in a phone interview.

The age of television, Goodwin believes, has made the demand for connection more immediate and intense. But never before George W. Bush did it quite reach the beer-drinking level of familiarity. “Now it’s all about being able to see your life story in the candidate, rather than the candidate, with empathy, being able to relate to you.

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/social-media-toolsets-the-us-vs-uk/)
Posted by on the 31st of May, 2008 at 11:52 pm under communication, media, research, social media and social networks.    This post has no comments.

I’m halfway through Charlene Li and Josh Bernoff’s Forrester backed study on social technologies “Groundswell“. Their definition of groundswell:

A social trend in which people use technologies to get the things they need from each other, rather than from traditional institutions like corporations.

100 pages in there hasn’t been anything earth shattering in terms of unexpected insight, though the case studies and different approaches of different industry are worth reading. What is great is the raw data that Li and Bernoff have access to and expose.

From a European perspective some of this data is more than a little troubling. Some hard facts:

Percentage of online consumers using RSS in 2007:

  • US: 8%
  • UK: 3%
  • France: 5%
  • Germay: 4%

And some figures on blog and UGC usage (US – UK):

  • Read blogs: 25% – 10%
  • Comment on blogs: 14% – 4%
  • Write a blog: 11% – 3%
  • Upload UGC video: 8% – 4%

Yet the percentage of users visiting social networking sites is much more evenly balanced with the US at 25% and the UK at 21%.

Again usage rates differ significantly when it comes to participation in discussion forums and postings ratings and reviews:

  • Participate in discussion forums: 18% – 12%
  • Read ratings and reviews: 25% – 20%
  • Post ratings and reviews: 11% – 5%

And again when various social media roles are looked at the level of engagement of UK audiences are roughly half that of US audiences. Why is this? In some markets lack of broadband is cited as a reason, but it doesn’t take a 2 meg connection to use Google Reader. Similarly, engaging in review cites such as CNet isn’t a high bandwidth task.

Is there then sociological reasons at play? Are Brits simply less inclined to both complain and applaud products and services online? Are they less willing to experiment with new media and plaster the results all over Flickr and YouTube? It would appear so but keepfakingit isn’t so sure why.

Li and Bernoff ( or maybe I’ll call them Charlene and Josh, this is after all social media) point to the reasons for participation in groundswell technologies. Going through these let’s see if there are any pointers to this great Atlantic divide. So, we participate to:

  1. Keep up friendships (Facebook etc.)
  2. Make new friends, lovers, one night stands (Facebook etc. again)
  3. Succumb to pressure from existing friends
  4. Paying it forward (you use a review site so feel eventually obliged to submit your own review)
  5. The altruistic impulse
  6. The prurient impulse (Showing off is fun)
  7. The creative impulse (UGC etc.)
  8. The validation impulse (we all want to be assured of our place in the world, the rationale behind many blogs)
  9. The affinity impulse (Big use case for sports fans).

Nothing in the above jumps out at me as the reason behind this US/UK drift. Let me know your thoughts.

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/media-exclusion-is-plural/)
Posted by on the 29th of May, 2008 at 8:37 am under media and social media.    This post has no comments.

Keepfakingit writes one post on the impact of technology on society and then along come a whole bus-like fleet. So keepingitbrief, here’s quick comment on Jeff Jarvis’ post this week on the subject of media singularity.

Jarvis makes a couple of points.
1. The internet is not a medium but a place.
2. There are very few new mediums, just different ways (iPhone, online paper etc.)  of accessing them. This illustrates point 1.

Then to requote Jarvis quoting John Naughton:

While I’m blathering on about this, let me quote the wonderful John Naughton of the Open University and the Observer, who wrote this for an essay for an Ofcom report:

‘Media’ is the plural of ‘medium’, a word with an interesting etymology. The conventional, everyday interpretation holds that a medium is a carrier of something. But in science, the word has another, more interesting, connotation. To a biologist, for example, a medium is a mixture of nutrients needed for cell growth. And that’s a very interesting interpretation for our purposes.

In biology, media are used to grow tissue cultures – living organisms. The most famous example, I guess, is the mould growing in Alexander Fleming’s Petri dishes which eventually led to the discovery of penicillin.

What I want to do is apply that perspective to human society: to treat it as an organism that depends on a media environment for the nutrients it needs to survive and develop. Any change in the environment – in the media that support social and cultural life – will have corresponding effects on the organism. Some things will wither; others may grow; new, mutant, organisms may appear. The key point of the analogy is simple: change the medium, and you change the organism.

This way of looking at our media environment is not new. I picked it up originally from the late Neil Postman, a passionate humanist who taught at New York University for more than 40 years and was an unremitting sceptic about the impact of technology on society.

I posted yesterday on the dangers of social exclusion from an increasingly ghettoized social cyber space . Naughton’s point above illustrates the point I made that it’s increasingly important for the gate keepers of these communities to recognize these dangers and tailor  online environments to be inclusive and open space. Yes they will naturally self select their populaces, but this doesn’t mean we should allow and encourage the building of cyber walls between them.

Naughton is reminding us of Postman’s thesis that the medium makes the messanger, or at least the person that receives the message. As long as we control the medium we should have a duty of care to that end-user.

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/social-surplus-are-things-really-going-to-get-better/)
Posted by on the 17th of May, 2008 at 8:15 pm under media, media studies and sport.    This post has one comment.

Big thinking critical technology theory, yep, that’s what it takes to shake Keepfaking it from its slumber. Well that’s what we’re looking for in life and we’ve found plenty of it at Clay Shirky’s shirky.com.

But before we get into the heavy stuff, what is it with Gilligan’s Island? Talk TV studies to an American and it’s the most discussed program of the 60’s. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen an entire episode. Sure I grew up on the wrong side of the Atlantic but I thought TV entertainment was a common language. The Cosby Show, Seasame Street, Bewitched, all shows that spoke the common language of TV-Land-eese. Gilligan’s Island, a foreign tongue if ever there was one.

But back to the theory. Shirky writes in-depth and rather cohesively about the concept of social surplus. Social surplus is the time people like us are clawing back from TV networks by creating internet content instead watching two minutes of Madison Avenue four to six times an hour.

The rise of the web, the blogsphere, social networks and most probably LOLCats means that this decade is the first in which we’ve started turning our eyes increasingly away from the TV and onto something different. Note, I certainly don’t think these new endevours are necessarily any more worthy. But Shirky does. Hence, coupled to Shirky’s social surplus is the notion of the heat sink:

Desperate Housewives essentially functioned as a kind of cognitive heat sink, dissipating thinking that might otherwise have built up and caused society to overheat. This cognitive heat is now being directed elsewhere.

Let’s take that at face value. If we weren’t all stuck indoors watching plasticly enhanced actors living outrageous fantasies we’d all be doing something more worthwhile. Maybe we would.

Shirky then goes on to look more closely at the relationship between heat sinks and social surplus but I want for a second to dwell on the heat sinks. What else in society is a heat sink? Religion? Professional sport? Are these institutions sucking in society’s intelligence and thought time without reward? Probably, but so what if they are. Well, let’s go back and look at what’s happening to TV.

Traditional TV is imploding. A one to many broadcast model simply won’t work and the distribution model gets more and more confusing every year. One only has to examine the perilous state that ITV and Channel 4 are in right now to confirm this.

Organized religion in Europe is in exactly the same state. Turning up to church at an appointed hour weekly is a game more and more punters are unwilling to play. And how about pro sport? Well that’s a trickier one. Despite more money than ever going into Premier League football, average gates year on year are dropping. So maybe these heat sinks are cooling down and drawing less of the social surplus they once were.

So what does all this mean, for TV, religion and sport. Back to Shirky:

This is something that people in the media world don’t understand. Media in the 20th century was run as a single race–consumption. How much can we produce? How much can you consume? Can we produce more and you’ll consume more? And the answer to that question has generally been yes. But media is actually a triathlon, it ’s three different events. People like to consume, but they also like to produce, and they like to share.

So Mr. CBS/Viacom/CNN/Sky/ManchesterUnited/RomanCatholicChurch, it’s easy, let us produce and create and share with you. Give us the content, some safety scissors and glue and we’ll go to town on the catechisms.

Again though I’m not so sure. Sharing for sharing’s sake. Are we merely dreaming of Life 2.0. a dangerous principle:

It’s better to do something than to do nothing. Even lolcats, even cute pictures of kittens made even cuter with the addition of cute captions, hold out an invitation to participation.

Just why is the creation of badly photoshopped kittens a more valid use of brain space than taking in a dose of Desperate Housewives?

My thoughts:

Is this new creation on the internet actually good for anything? look at all the erroneous Wikipedia entries. Most of the content on PhotoBucket is rubbish. When did YouTube actually do anything for humanity?

Sure we have to find out where the users have been locked out of participation with big media/sport/religion. But “if we carve out a little bit of the cognitive surplus and deploy it here, could we make a good thing happen?”

Ultimately we’re going to have to get the carving knives out, just let’s not fool ourselves that we’re creating a better, more cerebral society merely by letting the users play with the product.

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/sxsw-people-are-the-killer-app/)
Posted by on the 2nd of April, 2008 at 12:28 am under communication, media, social media, SXSW, sxsw2008, sxswi, technology and twitter.    This post has no comments.

This is my last post on SXSW. It may be the most important one though. As I’ve written, I went to SXSW thinking it would be a tech event. I’ve come back to London with the realization that it’s not about bits and bytes. It’s about people. It’s about the keynotes and the audience who take on those keynote speakers. It’s about regular panels and the individuals who stand up and wait for a turn to ask a question at the mic. And it’s about all those lunatics who see a twitter calling for a mid-afternoon tweet-up at a random bar and despite knowing nobody turn up and make friends. Thanks for that twitter.

I would like to briefly go through some standout panels and keynotes at SXSW. He was subsequently outshone, or certainly out hyped by other big guns, but for me Henry Jenkins really brought his A-Game. Thesis: Society and its leaders and its media are switching from an ‘I’ culture to a ‘we’ culture. Examples: Survivor and Lost’s level of audience participation. These prime time shows do not exist without their online audience examining every last secret detail of every frame of every episode.
Exampe: Barack Obama talks using the post-boomer inclusivity language of ‘We’. Hillary Clinton does not. ‘I’ plays a big part in Clinton’s speeches and represents a person born of a political generation that wholeheartedly embraces the one way medium of TV. That’s over Mrs. Clinton.
Daniel light adds to Jenkins’ thesis in his excellent post:

“This isn’t presented as happening at the expense of individuality or self-determination. On the contrary, this is not communism but communalism, seeing the interests of the community best served by the divergent creativity and initiative of we, its constituents.”

Social Networks such as Twitter and Seesmic are obvious manifestations of this communalism. They represent the audacity and urgency of intimacy that I think Jenkins talks about.

Mark Zuckerberg
A whole ton of stuff has been written about the Zukerberg/Lacy interview. It was a cringe worthy affair. So what, let’s get on with the show. Neither Zuckerberg nor Lacy came across as particularly interesting individuals in person, but I do want to examine a few points Zuck tried to get out between acts of audience revolt. Sure, audience participation via online social network back channels is interesting but not in a huge manner right now. Come on, this is one of the biggest geek fests on the planet, if it’s going to happen anywhere it’s going to happen here.

One interesting side note is the reference Zuck makes to how Facebook is helping revolutionaries in Colombia. Look at the Guardian piece on FB’s backers. Is this thus a huge surprise. Government and big business have sought to control information and access to information since mankind invented media. ie forever. The reformation was enabled by Guttenberg’s wresting of information control from the Catholic church after all. If I’m the CIA, you better believe I want to control, or at the very least have readily available access to these information paths.

One worry here is that as with Google, as large corporations start to gain an ownership on our information and relationships they can massage these in different ways. McLuhan’s statement on medium and message rings true. Our thoughts and the way we think adapts to the medium. Control that and control the message.

Zuck stated quite audaciously that Facebook represents the biggest paradigm shift in media since the launch of the newspaper industry. Maybe he’s actually right, did anyone think of that?

Newspapers didn’t shift society’s thought functionality on their own, it took the invention and adoption of the telegraph to put them over the edge. The telegraph removed the limitations of space and time on the newspaper industry. The newspaper press was then free to become the first medium to involve human interest and sentiment en masse. With that the telegraph ultimately dimmed the privacy of the book form.

Nearly 200 years later social networks are doing a similar job in dismantling barriers of intimacy in our communications. The generation of school children on Bebo has grown up with almost a complete, non-technological, tool set to use social networks to communicate.

Commentators in their twenties and older wonder how this generation is going to grow up and hit the work force with all their teenage trials and tribulations shared online for the potential employer to vet. But that isn’t the employee’s problem. They are comfortable with their shared intimacy. It’s the employer who’s going to have to deal with it. In the past decade we’ve had two presidents in the US and a leader of the opposition in the UK who have crossed this Rubicon in terms of records and recollections of student drug usage. This is surely the start of a societal change from punishing past indiscretions to an open acknowledgment of mistakes.

We’ve already stated that the newspaper press wasn’t the catalyst for the changing of media consumption in the 1800’s. It was the Telegraph. And so social networks. Flash AJAX deployments and integrated APIs aren’t the killer app here. These aren’t changing society. But what might do that that is the integration of mobile devices. This is why Google is spending so much on Android and wireless. It may be that Social Networks will finally come of age and be the instruments of change that MZ proports them to be when they fully embrace a mobile world. This is the only way they are going to penetrate Africa for example.

So to Frank Warren
I’ve been a fan of PostSecret since I first saw it in some Sunday supplement or another. It’s collage like art/intimacy I think connects with a lot of people. We’ve all got something hidden inside us.

However seeing Warren’s name up beside Jenkins and Zuckerberg was something of a surprise. This guy’s an artist/currator. How does that fit into an interactive conference?

Well let’s look at what interactive means. Warren has created more direct interactions than perhaps anyone in the auditorium. And on an incredibly intimate level. It’s fair to say that Warren knows how to extract the intimate in just about anyone. The hour long talk featured quite a few tales of anonymous secrets, but the amazing thing was what this outpouring of secrets did to the audience. The Q&A section, or rather mass secret section produced one spontaneous proposal of marriage, lots of confessions and one hug from Frank for a woman who fell into floods of teams in front of 2,000 super-geeks. Wow. Nothing I write here can do him justice. Some of his talks are online. Find them.

Four points from Jane McGonigal’s talk on the happiness industry. All recent research on happiness points to four key areas that are pre-requisites for bringing happiness to a life:

1. Satisfying work to do
2. The experience of being good at something
3. Time spent with people we like
4. A chance to be a part of something bigger

What’s this to do with interactive? Jane’s a multi-player game expert. And multiplayer games bring all four of these in spades. If your industry doesn’t it’s time to think why not.

So on to other highlights. George Kelly gave the most sombre talk of the weekend. He read like a Telegraph obit. The funeral was that of the newspaper industry and George obviously cares. Not that that’s going to stop the declining sales, slash and burn approach to the world’s news rooms and a mass exodus of advertisers to green online pastures.
That leaves me with this question though which I want to explore over the coming months. is it a given that these forms of communication and participation will jump the gap between international geek community and mass adoption. Facebook has done it, but can Twitter and Seesmic really go mass market in their current guise or will they simply be sold off for their API’s. Does the real innovation lie in ancillilary apps?

Finally some learnings at a basic level. Despite our web 2.0 tools it’s vital to connect in a real way, not just at a Facebook or MySpace level. Without real interaction, and maybe even face to face communication these web2.0 relationships do not mean a whole lot. Gary Vaynurchuck understands this. Watch how he communicates with his audience. But big media doesn’t. It they get Facebook, Myspace and Twitter, it’s at a marketing level. Useless.

Nike is a company that I find absolutely offensive for their continued outsourcing/labour issues, BUT they get this. They are using their brand and social status to connect people in the real world. More companies need to get this too. And like Nike they may well be companies that haven’t done this before. If you work in the world of sport, an area that is invented to accomodate social interaction you better be thinking this or you’re going to be left way out by your audience.

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/sxswi-2008-technologies-and-applications/)
Posted by on the 27th of March, 2008 at 11:34 pm under communication, media, SXSW, sxsw2008, sxswi, technology and twitter.    This post has no comments.

I went to SXSWi expecting to be dazzled by technology. I wasn’t. Instead I was impressed by the application of technology. That may not sound like a huge difference. It doesn’t matter how good the technology is after a certain point, it’s the passion the user-base brings to the table that puts an application or a service over the edge.
So back to the point, the impressive technologies and apps were those that were being used, that had all the ad-spend but none of the on-the-ground grubbiness. I’m thinking you in particular Silverlight.
In no pearticular order shout outs to:

Utterz
If I had a US phone bill I’d have been using this in a big way. A tumblr crossed with friendfeed for mobile access (kinda). (I think).Utterz is just about unique enough to work. It can be accessed via any mobile or landline in the world and it connects to your kitchen sink.

Seesmic
Didn’t take the convention by storm the way it could have, but for my money it’s the best insta-vlogger on the market. Once it perfects it’s mobile interoperability and good video handsets (ie a few more N95 clones) come down in price Seesmic is going to explode. So see me after SXSWi 2009.

Friendfeed
I thought FriendFeed was going to save my life. It aggregates all you ‘friend’s’ web2.0 feed and delivers them in a daily dose. But now I’m not so sure. After using the service for a couple of weeks I’m starting to think spam! Maybe I should just turn off the daily notifying email. Lifestream services are 10 a penny right now, and the word on the twitter feed says the best two out there are FriendFeed and Social Thing. We’ll see.

Meebo
Meebo’s been around a while. The best thing about it? It works. Meebo were a major sponsor for SXSW but their investment went beyond some sales inventory in the guide books. They created a live chat room for every panel of the interactive conference and they were used as a pretty good back channel for some of the discussions. So far so 1999. But it worked. Social networking doesn’t have to ride the zeitgeist like a Harley every day of the week. Nothing wrong with improving proven concepts.

Twitter
Last night twitter saved my life. Glad to see Gary Vaynerchuck is on the same delayed reaction post SXSW buzz as Keepfakingit. Read and watch him here. garyvaynerchuk.com—twitter-vs-facebook kinda. I endorse his view on Twitter completely. Though my Jersey accent isn’t quite so pronounced.

WordPress
When the bloggers of the world combined at SXSW they did it in a sponsored press-area-esque room called the BlogHaus. And WordPress continues to dominate the market. Not an interesting statement but a true one.

Viddler
Is Viddler the most interesting streaming video player on the market right now? It could well be. I saw nothing at SXSW from Brightcove or YouTube or any of the other big players. It’s time for someone else to step to the plate. Viddler may be ready to go. It’s got the social comment thing down. And it looks nice too. Check it.
Drupel: Fast Company have just jumped aboard the good ship Drupel and at a panel on the current state of CMSs the open souce solution looked good.

Next New Networks
I’ve already said it but these guys are where CNN was quarter century ago. And they’ve got the feet-on-the-ground professional approach to content that means they may succeed where the podcasting and blogging aggregators have failed. Theirs was also one of the best parties. Public displays of Rock Band in an adult environment is a good thing.

Android
I didn’t hang with the Google guys. Not my scene. But amongst those whose scene it was, Android was making a serious impression. There may be no such thing as the mobile web, but it’s going to take a big heave to get the world’s population mobile access that really works. And there’s no denying that that’s what the world’s internet population wants.
I’ve seen enough shysters in my time telling me they were going to make me, and those I represent, rich from half-baked mobile apps. Mobile apps aren’t going to make anybody rich, but apps that can go mobile are. And Google are primed to pick up some of that revenue. If I were a startup, or a blue chip app creator, I’d make sure I had an incubator with with Android developers beavering away on something. On anything. Can’t win the game if you don’t know the rules.

Live.Rezpondr.com
So that’s the overview. But I keep coming back to the people and the talent at SXSW. live.rezpondr.com is a great example of smart creatives using a host of different services to put together a media package that meets specific events, in this case SXSW. So big shout out to Phil Campbell and Documentally. Big media could do worse than bring these guys in on a consultancy gig to shake up their news room.

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/swsxi-2008-themes/)
Posted by on the 25th of March, 2008 at 8:28 am under 2008, austin, communication, media, new media, SXSW, sxswi and technology.    This post has no comments.

So now we’ve got a mission statement for SXSWi 2008. Or at least I do. What are the supporting themes that are going to shape and direct this media adventure? From the hip: Personality and Participation.

The first formal panel I attended on Saturday was “Quit you day job and start video blogging” chaired by Next New Network’s Tim Shey. The panel featured Shey along with a host of video blogging pioneers. A couple of interesting points worth noting. First off, all of these people were talent and talented, knew how to act in front of a camera and crucially had something more interesting to say than the “fed-the-cat” stories that many blogs consist of. Whether the distribution medium is network tv or online vod, talent is talent. You simply can’t succeed without it.

The second more interesting point taken from this panel was I think mentioned by an audience member (note, the audiences at SXSW are the best in the business, but more of that later). The current state of play for online video producers and aggregators was likened to that of CNN and the cable networks in the US thirty years ago. The cable nets were a new game in town, run by young entrepreneurs who could think quicker move faster and than their counterparts in CBS, ABC and NBC. And crucially the FCC had limited jurisdiction meaning that there were virtually no limits on what the programmers could do. They utterly changed the rules of TV. Well guess what, that’s what it looks like to those working at the likes of Next New Networks. As the barriers to entry for online video networks lower, the truly creative are taking over from the truly geeky. The talent is spending more time on the shows and not worrying about html, bandwidth and hosting. And the likes of NNN are putting in place a layer of professionalism to bring in the revenue and quality control.

One question that has only occurred to me since SXSWi relates to the level of audience participation these new video producers are bringing to their shows. It would seem that they should be ahead of their network cousins. Are they? The subject simply didn’t come up.

That the old networks still don’t understand their audience isn’t even a question. Exhibit A: the text and phone scandals that hit BBC hard and brought ITV to its knees in 2007. Had these institution a clue about how to communicate with their viewers the voting rip-offs simply couldn’t and wouldn’t have happened. But back to Texas…

I suspect participation has been a theme of SXSWi since its inception; come on, ‘i’ is for interactive. But let’s take a quick look at what participation meant in 2008. Every single one of the tech companies that I’ve highlighted here have mass audience participation as either key USP or a key functionality component.

I’ve already mentioned audience participation. During every single keynote, panel and talk there existed back channel conversations involving the live audience. These conversations were formally or informally hosted by the likes of Meebo, Twitter and Utterz. The more astute chairpersons paid attention to these back channels and directed conversations accordingly, props here to Robert Scoble and David Dylan Thomas amongst others. The less astute and plain bad (I’m thinking Sarah Lacy/Mark Zuckerberg here) simply lost control to a collective intelligence in the auditorium that was simply too powerful for them to handle. It was amazing to be in one of these auditoriums, filled with maybe 2,000 normally sedate tech people, and be part of a collaborative revolt against the person meant to be directing proceedings.

If this behaviour is going to happen anywhere on Earth it’s going to be SXSWi, where thousands of the earliest adopters are gathered trying to out-geek each other. But there will come a point when these technologies and behaviours go critical and spread to the outside world. This was the participatory theme of 2008.

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/sxswi-208-initial-thoughts-and-overview/)
Posted by on the 25th of March, 2008 at 8:13 am under 2008, austin, communication, media, new media, SXSW, sxswi and technology.    This post has no comments.

SXSWi finished a fortnight ago. Over those two weeks I’ve traveled home, read what others have had to say on the event and tried to pull some of those thoughts together. No apologies for the delay, there have been some advantages to waiting this long before writing about SXSWi.

Below I’ve attempted to distil and bottle my version of the SXSWi elixir. Maybe it’s easier to start off with what for me SXSWi is not. It’s not a tech conference in the manner of E3. It’s not a West Coast think-in á-la TED and it certainly isn’t an economically driven cock-fest such as Davos. It shares common factors with all of the above, as well as some PodCamp, BarCamp and any other kind of tech/media trade camp show that you may care to list. It takes elements from all of these, cross pollinates and spits them back out into one very social and sociable long weekend in Texas’ capital. What struck me most of all was the insights into current media culture on display. By that I mean media in its truest form, as extensions of our senses, not the definition of media limited to depressing discussions on the state of our commercial mass media such as network TV and the newspaper industry. I was so taken with this big picture look at media that since the event I’ve dusted off “Understanding Media” and gone back to McLuhan to structure some of my thoughts.

Of course I’ll put an asterisk against the opening words here. This is my take, there are a thousands others many of which will show deeper and more informed insight than myself.

It is human nature to look for patterns and assign themes where only true randomness exists. I’m most definitely guilty of that below, but I think it still worth while to look for common threads across the five days of SXSWi. Reading the discourse coming back on the event online one concept is calling out over all others. With the year that’s in it let’s call it “the audacity and urgency of intimacy”

Through posts on the themes, technologies, events and questions of SXSWi I intend to show that the out of control freight train that is new media is pushing social communication into truly new places and there isn’t anybody out there who really knows where it will ultimately take us too. Not Mark Zuckerberg, not Eric Schmidt and certainly not myself.

So let’s take my newly minted paraphrase backwards. The Intimacy comes from the new level of connectivity society is embracing, particularly those under 20 and living in the West. We’re connecting and sharing our lives at a base level never before done through a mass medium. This is urgent in that we’re pushing these connections right now and regardless of consequence. The teens of today may be in their thirties before the ramifications of this new connectedness comes homes to roost (that sounds like a warning, it isn’t, I’m optimistic for this Bebo generation). Finally the audacity. Anyone who has heard Mark Zukerberg speak his enthusiasm for Facebook’s mission can’t help but describe him using the adjective ‘audacious’. He believes he’s fueling a media revolution not seen since the dawn of the modern newspaper. And he thinks that despite the very public pushback the likes of Facebook’s Beacon are getting. Zukerberg may well be right though.

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/getty-images-a-failed-business-model-that%e2%80%99s-just-been-bought/)
Posted by on the 26th of February, 2008 at 8:47 pm under media and social networks.    This post has no comments.

I wrote about Getty Images being on the market last week. The price at the time was north of $1.6bn. The buyout price  turns out to have been $2.4bn. The guys at Hellman $ Friedman clearly weren’t reading this website when they went all in. What were you thinking!?!

Here’s some pap from the press release. From the Getty side:

“We are enthusiastic about entering the next phase of Getty Images’ evolution by partnering with Hellman & Friedman as we continue to provide innovative offerings to businesses and consumers in a very dynamic digital media environment.”

And the H$F MD Andy Ballard said the private equity firm will work to “realise the full potential of [Getty’s] traditional businesses while furthering the evolution of Getty Images into a global digital media company”.

Can’t wait to hear how they’re going to do that. It’s certainly not going to happen by them continuing the aggressive acquisition model that has seen them acquire 50 companies in a decade, but lose serious market value over the past two year.

These guys are going to have to get out amongst the publishers, both big and super-small, and come up with a new business model. Some suggestions:
How about working with Google to rev share the yield on pages that also display ad-sense. Let’s call this one photo-sense. If a photo really does add value to an article, some ad-creative or a feature  piece let the traffic reward Getty.

On the other side, how about you let the amateurs (and pros) on Flickr tunnel through the Getty API and sell their wares straight to the  world’s photodesks.

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/making-content-out-of-process/)
Posted by on the 22nd of February, 2008 at 1:30 pm under communication and media.    This post has no comments.

Teaching old journalists new (media) tricks is tough. Teaching new journalists new tricks is just as tough. That’s what Paul Bradshaw is claiming at onlinejournalismblog.com. For decades, centuries journalists have been told to make sure sure their story is rock solid before publishing. But:

My feeling is that there is still a clear one-way – and gated – publishing mentality from journalism students. My challenge over the following eight lessons is to demonstrate that, online, journalism is not just writing a webpage or filming a video; it is commenting on a blog, or bookmarking a webpage. That there are no walls in cyberspace, only links; and that journalism lies in every act that you commit online. You just need to make it visible.

The most important points made are in the comments. First by Bradshaw himself:

The value of publishing work in progress needs to be more explicitly demonstrated.

Then by Nick from the BBC:

Hmm, can’t remember from where I heard it, but someone made the point
that we [journalists] can now ‘make content out of our process’ – I
guess that’s what you are trying to show them.

Publishing and opening up the process of journalism will cost next to nothing. And it can only bring audience closer to the story whilst maintaining some sort of pro/consumer barrier that ensure only the good stuff gets published.

Now, let’s go get some examples of who’s publishing process well.

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/networked-fast-company/)
Posted by on the 21st of February, 2008 at 7:43 pm under media and social networks.    This post has no comments.

What Fast Company are doing in terms of integrating amateur and pro content is pretty interesting. Right through their site they are erasing the boundaries between their highly paid internet A-Listers, Scoble, Israel etc, and their readers. And the truly amazing thing here is that Fast Company is at heart a magazine, the oldest of old media types.

One thing that makes this work is that the pro bloggers and writers are really pro. And the community editors are doing a good job of bringing the very best amateur content to the surface.

Jeff Jarvis weighs in with his ever definitive thoughts on FC and co here.

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/micro-broadcasting-for-dollars-and-millicents/)
Posted by on the 21st of January, 2008 at 11:24 pm under media and technology.    This post has no comments.

Millicent, the super lo-fi, low-cost, use-it-with-web2.0-things is profiled in today’s MediaGuardian. This is great. I think. Particularly the distributed collaboration aspect.

Let’s see if we can get a demo of this for a team that is split in three locations around the British Isles and is producing non-live content for web and broadcast. We’ll post some results here maybe.

Powered by ScribeFire.

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/beer-and-pussy-hugh-mc-leod%e2%80%99s-social-markers/)
Posted by on the 17th of January, 2008 at 12:51 pm under communication, media and sport.    This post has no comments.

Blogs with cartoons, that’s the way it should be done, and nobody does it better than Hugh McLeod.

His post on “social markers”
has some great insights. But it’s the example Hugh uses that really catches my attention. By using the Boston Red Sox, McLeod points out probably the greatest social marker on the planet. At least for the 50% of people with “Mr.” in front of their names. Sure beer and pussy are pretty big ones too for us males, but if sport wasn’t invented for this purpose someone like Mark Zuckerberg would have to round up some funding to do it.

So why do so many sports websites fail to get this? Sure there are some great community sports ventures, I’m thinking sportingo.com and the like, but big media hasn’t done a lot of note other than the standard web forums as seen on the likes of espn.com and skysports.com. These simply do not  engage users the way social nets do. Sports news and analysis is piled high on the back of an 18 wheeler running red lights on a one way street.

This is something Setanta.com can build on. Right now Setanta is showing the best slate of big-time boxing fights the UK has seen in years. It’s a sport with renewed vigour because of the likes of Joe Calzaghe, Ricky Hatton and David Haye. And the boxing community has jumped in and are using any available means of communication to tell us how much they like it. We simply have to give them a better way of communicating this passion than web forums, reply boxes to articles and email addresses.

Great cartoon btw Hugh.

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/polls-apart-more-pseudo-news-stories/)
Posted by on the 10th of January, 2008 at 5:55 pm under media.    This post has no comments.

Paddy Power paid out on Mr. Obama taking the whole Democratic nomination before the New Hampshire primary. Why? Well like his compatriot Tony O’Leary, Paddy Power jnr. has never been one to back off some (relatively) cheap publicity. That and the fact that 7 US polls had Obama in the lead 24 hours before polling.

Poll are like campaign debates. Pseudo-events that are created and facilitated for a media that will not engage fully with candidates and pose the tough questions. In this case the polls were dead wrong. By up to 13 points.

This has huge implications for all candidates from here on. And as CJR.org points out there are no easy answers for the pollsters. The answer for the media outlets: Lead with the facts guys and let’s get over the numbers and the spin.

Powered by ScribeFire.

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/twitter-as-a-mass-review-tool/)
Posted by on the 6th of January, 2008 at 10:07 pm under communication, election08, media, politics, social networks, sport and twitter.    This post has no comments.

Jeff Jarvis and Dave Winer have put together an interesting collaborative media review tool over the past few days. It’s worth checking out at http://twitcrit.scripting.com/changes.html.

The technology is simple. Get a Twitter account, track down and start following @twitcrit, then message @twitcrit with any media review that takes your fancy. So far so easy if you can script and rummage around an api. But let’s step back from Jarvis’ critique of the latest Democratic prez debate (hey Jeff, why all the hating on you boy Barack?) and look at what this approach does to media interaction.

The wonderful thing about Twitter is that it is a nice simple lightweight medium for one to many broadcasting. Using a browser, a desktop app or a normal SMS from a phone, anyone can send 160 characters of  love, hate or debate to those that “follow” their tweets. There’s no walled gardens (Facebook etc.) which means the user can get information in and and out of Twitter with the minimum of fuss.

Up until now Twitter has been great in situations such as conferences, where, for a short period of time only, people need a one-to-many communication structure.  It also did a job during recent Californian fires. But all of these uses have been somewhat simplistic. There’s not a lot done with the data on either side of the transport. Message is entered into Twitter, Twitter sends it on it’s merry way, tweet is read at the other end. Bosh!

But how about we start some smart aggregation as Jarvis is suggesting. How about instead of treating each tweet as an isolated many-to-one message, we aggregate it with other likeminded tweets so that we have many many-to-one tweets all sorted and bunched on the receive side. We then start building a picture of what the crowd is thinking on any particular subject, and importantly (as this really comes into its own in live situations) we get a picture of how the crowd’s collective mind is changing as the debate/show/movie/game is progressing.

So how’s this different from those calls to action for standard text messages during X-Factor and the like? Twitter is the difference here. All of this messaging takes place within a defined (but relatively open) infrastructure. We can follow our tweets. We can reply to others and we can interact on a plethora of devices in different ways.

Two applications immediately jump to mind. Elections. Live sport. Howard Dean and the rise of the A-List blogger made blogging the big story of 2004. Can Twitter have an impact this time around?

As for sport, we have a bit longer to think about that, but at the very least a live play-by-play of the Super Bowl, or the multimillion dollar 30 second spots that surround it is a goer in a few weeks.

Now, one final issue. What and how does big media get a piece of this action?

C:\COD>display post(http://keepfakingit.com/mcluhan-the-distraction-of-the-entertainment-world/)
Posted by on the 2nd of January, 2008 at 11:32 pm under media and social networks.    This post has no comments.

In the week that Big Brother once again pokes its nasty head out of room 101 here’s some words from Marshall McLuhan’s Understanding Media pp 67:

Having extended or translated our central nervous system into the electromagnetic technology, it is but a further stage to transfer our consciousness to the computer world as well. Then, at least, we shall be able to program consciousness in such wise that it cannot be numbed nor distracted by the Narcissus illusions of the entertainment world that beset mankind when he encounters himself extended in his own gimmickry.

If the work of the city is the remaking or translating of man into a more suitable form than his nomadic ancestors achieved, then might not our current translation of our entire lives into the spiritual form of informations seem to make of the entire globe, and of the human family, a single consciousness?

Adding McLuhan’s two points together: if we get social we get rid of Big Brother and the rest of our navel gazing “reality culture”. Yet it could be argued that “reality” media is the apex of media development in the four decades since McLuhan wrote the above. It’s not an argument I’m going to make right now though. That’s one for Andy Duncan over at Channel 4.