Sorry, I don't use the word "media." I don't use the word "news." I don't think that those words mean anything anymore. They defined publishing in the 20th century. Today, they are a barrier. They are standing in our way, like a horseless carriage.
I read lots of articles from mainstream media but I don't go to mainstream media directly to read it. It comes to me, which is really quite common these days. More and more people are choosing social filters for their news rather than professional filters. We're tuning out television news, we're tuning out newspapers. And we still hear about the important stuff, it's just that it's not like this drumbeat of bad news. It's news that matters. I figure by the time something gets to me it's been vetted by those I trust. So the stupid stuff that doesn't matter is not going to get to me.
I don't get how he can think the words "media" and "news" are a barrier and then shortly afterward say he reads lots of articles from mainstream media. It's like he's dissing the very thing he relies on for "important stuff." Right?
And I can understand tuning out inane TV news, but tuning out newspapers? It's kind of like saying, I want to be oblivious. I'll just read what my friends think is neat.
Yes? Or am I the ignorant one here? Please help me understand the ways and thoughts of this Internet wise man.
12 comments:
Oy. Um, yeah there's some issues that need to be addressed here. This may be one of those cases where someone thinks the whole world works the same way their life works.
The guy is the fucking editor-in-chief of fucking Wired magazine. of course current events news comes to him.
I don't really understand his issue with the word "media" and why he thinks that word gets in the way. maybe he has a problem with the word like I have a problem with the word "steampunk". Maybe the word "media" is being applied to too many things, and that is what he is objecting to? Then it comes down to your definition of what "media" is exactly.
If I go by Answers.com, "media" is:
"(1) Materials that hold data in any form or that allow data to pass through them, including paper, transparencies, multipart forms, hard, floppy and optical discs, magnetic tape, wire, cable and fiber. Media is the plural of "medium."
(2) Any form of information, including music and movies. May also refer to CDs, DVDs, videotapes and other prerecorded material. See multimedia.
(3) The trade press (magazines, newspapers, etc.)."
Ummm I may be wrong, but those definitions seem to suggest media as being timeless and amorphous.
Hard to see that as some sort of barrier. Perhaps that's just me?
"News" and "media" are just words, dude.
Perhaps he is saying that the twitter/facbook/linkedin-proto-hivemind is the only true source for current events anymore? perhaps he is just the next wave of hivemind advertising?
I personally find the use of the hive mentality for news gathering a bit spooky. I like having filters. Maybe I'm outdated. Someone escort me to Carousel please.
[I've been having lots of these sentiments lately regarding seeing a new mentality in social networking lately. I wish I could say more at this moment, but unfortunately there are a few people's careers tied into my sentiments. I'll address it again in a few weeks.]
Using Twitter (or similar MEDIA) at as your only source of news seems as smart as using public masturbation as your only source of exercise.
I sure hope he didn't mean to say that this hivemind is the best source of news. The point of these sites is that you select only for things you're interested in and filter out everything else. The problem is that what you're reading is still 40% repetition, 40% noise, 40% misinformation, and you're still missing everything else important that you didn't select for your feed in the first place. To say that this is the best source for news is ludicrous.
And any other news that might get to you is sorted purely on its potential for sensationalism. Protests in Iran, the death of Jeff Goldblum... the more popular a tag gets, the more likely others will want to use it, and the further down anything else important will go in popularity because 8/10 of the top 10 tags are always about hollywood and gadgets.
Things like the health bill, housing crisis, Darfur... these are chronic and complicated, and are secure in being so because they'll never get on the front page of twitter until they're out of control enough to be sensationalized.
And the Goldblum thing is another point. There's maybe 10% accountability on Twtitter. Either you reference back to a reputable news site like AP or NYT, or you're probably getting your news ten circular translations away from what actually happened.
Articles like this make me realize how problematic twitter is. Just go to AP or NYT. That NYT article skimmer Pony posted is great.
http://piecesofthings.blogspot.com/search?q=skimmer
The second half of the interview was interesting, though.
(sigh) And to think I was annoyed that a friend of mine was getting her news from Oprah.
A complete reliance on the hivemind for information would be terrifying. But that seems to be Anderson is advocating.
People who do this are likely to find themselves in echo chambers of like-minded people who share similar thoughts.
Much like the birthers now.
These guys feed off each other. They share the latest tidbit they've found showing Obama was born in Kenya, and grow increasingly agitated when they encounter people who don't share their point of view.
My coworker, btw, the other day received over 40 irate e-mails from birthers in response to a story he wrote saying the state Department of Health has checked Obama's birth certificate and confirmed that yes, he was born in Hawaii.
One e-mail said my employer needed to be shut down. Many of the e-mails were full of gramatical erros and didn't make any sense. They were just oozing hostility and anger.
Btw, Panic, I look forward to reading your thoughts on a new mentality in social networking. Can't wait until you are able to divulge details!!!
I really shouldn't have made it sound as exciting as I apparently have.
I could be wrong here, but I don't think he's talking about the uselessness of news generated by the MSM (despite his initial bold wordplay), but rather the systems in place to deliver such reporting. And I really don't think he's suggesting at all that the general chatter on Twitter could possibly replace professional reporting.
I get the sense that he's replacing the newspaper (and to an extent, the news website) with the chatter and links posted to his social networks. Both the physical newspaper and his virtual network could be seen as a method of indexing the stories being told in the MSM, and it sounds like he simply places more value on the judgment of his network, which he can fine-tune as needed. There is the matter of his job, which probably shapes his social network into a very good index of what's happening, and this gives his comments a slightly idiotic, let-them-eat-cake tone.
The message here is probably the wrong message to send to the average person. I think you guys are right on--that the average person seeing this and taking it at face value would go out and set themselves up with a news feed that simply echoed their beliefs, creating their own private FOXNews or MSNBC.
I follow Chris Anderson on Twitter. I also follow people with opposing viewpoints. There are lots of Internet Wise Men, and none of them agree with each other completely.
The interview reinforces several misconceptions about social networking sites. The signal to noise ratio is skewed towards noise in all but a few situations, and you wouldn't use the things people say on a social networking site as a simple replacement for news any more that you'd use World of Warcraft to find a good contractor. Great for setting up events, though. And knowing what people at an event are thinking.
Odori posted that article skimmer. I just made it my home page, which I've been meaning to do all year.
I too, look forward to Galspanic's big reveal.
I see Mr. Pony's point. And I think the blogger Andrew Sullivan shares it, to a degree. His point is more along the lines that old media no longer has the authority it once did, and people are increasingly turning to non-traditional media for their information.
But while Mr. Pony says you wouldn't replace your news sources with your social media network, Andrew Sullivan seems to think that's just fine.
But a lot of information on social media networks originates in the mainstream media. So when the mainstream media bleeds to death as Anderson seems to hope, who's going to research and report news?
Activists? The governor's spokesman? More than likely.
Problem is, these guys want to promote their beliefs, not tell a story. So readers are less likely to be exposed to a well-researched story written by someone who's comfortable talking to people on all sides of an issue.
We're going to get our news about whaling from the boat-ramming Sea Shepherd Society. And our news about the governor straight from her PR reps.
OK, I will stop.
And I acknowledge, I have a personal interest in helping keep the mainstream media alive.
Part of me thinks I may just be like a horse carriage driver who hates the internal combustion engine.
It's sort of funny that this conversation was brought back up. There's something in it that sparked with me today.
Pony and I were talking about something that happened to us the other night at the concert.
Fugu, Pony and I were standing in line waiting to get into the place, and these youngish glam type people asked us if it was ok if they cut behind us in line. Pony responded that the line wasn't really that long and that there was no need to cut, to which they said that the line was in fact really long. There are several problems with this, but the striking ones are that these glam types didn't even bother to ask the people they were cutting in front of if it was ok. They also proceeded to cut whether we said it was ok or not. Pony and I were talking about this, and he brought up a synopsis of a Star Trek episode in which a genetically modified mutant dressed as a Starfleet officer manages to make his way through the galaxy simply by being condescending or deriding to anyone who questioned him. I'm paraphrasing of course, but that's the general idea that stuck in my brain. Later today I found myself watching clips of Bill O'Reilly of the O'Reilly Factor noteriety, and I realized that he does the same thing that those glam people, and that Star Trek mutant were doing. It's all about the power of conviction.
Why am I bringing this up here?
Well, it struck me as odd that Chris Anderson can say something in a blasé manner and cause people who I believe to be reasonably smart to stop in their tracks and say things like "Is it me?" or "I could be wrong, but..." .
Bill O'Reilly takes advantages of pauses like this in his "interviews". He presses his attack (no matter how unsound or illogical it may be) and "wins" his arguments by simply not allowing counterpoints to even come into his mind.
Glam kids cut in line at a concert, and don't let the people behind them even enter their thoughts.
Chris Anderson can say "media" and "news" are outdated words, and doesn't even care about his next paragraph contradicting him. And by this point in our thread we have Odori wondering if she's a Luddite.
This shit is crazypants.
I realize that glam kids and Bill O'Reilly are a weird stretch of the imagination to pair up with Chris Anderson, but then hey, weird stretches of the imagination are my bread and butter.
I think this is a brilliant comparison.
It's a call to action. Let's stand up to rude, self-important assholes _ whether they are magazine editors, punks, or television hosts!!
Btw, I can't believe the glam kids asked you guys if they could cut in line behind you. What wimps!
If I had had some coffee in me, I would've given 'em what for. I would've read 'em the riot act, I tells ya! In my weakened state, though, all I could manage was "Unnnh. Muuh, nuh."
Post a Comment