Its well worth the read, bits that caught my eye,

Ginko Kobayashi, a London-based Japanese journalist who is author of the popular Japanese-language UK Media Watch blog says: “There’s been a battle going on in recent years between the traditional Japanese media, whose policies are decided by middle-aged men, and the Net media, dominated by people in their 20s and 30s. Net media—Ustream, Twitter and famous blogs—are changing the direction of debates in Japan, though not in a major way yet.”

Obviously members of the British Press and and Rupert Murdoch are also Japanese by the sounds of things, Rupes would love this sort of control…

Commenting on how new media technologies have impacted traditional mainstream Japanese media, Uesugi singled out Twitter, whose adoption by freelancers means that “(government) press conferences are effectively held online. As a result, at least the public has learned about the existence of the dreadful system known as the kisha club. The Internet has had a positive effect. I think the kisha club system will collapse within the next 10 years.”

(Here a link) to my thoughts on where I think newsbrands are heading and why.

Three moral hazards bedevil Japan’s mainstream media, Jimbo says: cross-ownership, under which the “Big Five” media groups—Yomiuri, Asahi, Mainichi, Nihon Keizai and Sankei—own or have stakes in dozens of TV stations, radio stations, newspapers and magazines; the kisha club system; and the resale price maintenance system, which allows newspaper companies to sell their products at prices higher than the market would normally dictate.

Such cozy arrangements ill serve the Japanese public, Jimbo believes. “In the past 50 years, there’s been no newcomer in the Japanese mass media industry. Back in the ’70s cable TV came along, satellite TV arrived in the ’90s, and now there’s the Internet, which is finally changing the shape of the media, slowly,” he says. “But in the past 50 years, the five conglomerates have dominated the market, and there’s been no newcomer. That shows how closed the market is, and how well protected they are.”

It all comes down to that millennial struggle of “power”, who has it and who wields it. It major organisations control the sphere of public debate about important topics they control society politically. As Franz Fanon said, “a people will only be free when they control their own communications”. As Karel van Wolferen, emeritus professor of comparative political and economic institutions at the University of Amsterdam describes the Japanese media, a “well-tuned single-voice choir”. Van Wolferen also observed,

“Since the large newspapers in Japan are really major authors of political reality—much more so than newspapers in any European country or the United States—because of the arrangements that they have with each other: the agreements about what to highlight, what to write about and what to cover up, that means that Japanese newspapers are going to be less important in determining political reality in Japan.”

These are the challenges of living in a networked society, that affect every society on this planet.

So if you cannot truly give value back to your relevant community and stay relevant then you become irrelevant instead. Simples. The only thing I would say is where is mobile in all of this guys? And lets see some of that innovation this side of the pond! Question – really is anyone in the UK doing some good stuff on local news and journalism? As I would happily champion their cause.

Here is the nub is the story, as told by Roman Gallo, director of media strategies for Amsterdam-based investment firm, PPF Group.

The idea is to create a newsroom environment where as little separation as possible exists between those reporting the news and those consuming it. To break down that wall his company developed news cafes – newsrooms containing public cafes, where community members are encouraged to drop in, share their ideas and even contribute to the publication. “We use these cafes as community centres,” he said. “There’s a much better understanding of community life for our editorial staff because there are no barriers.” The cafes don’t just quench caffeine cravings, either. Each newsroom frequently holds community events like concerts or dance lessons, often attracting hundreds of people from the area. The novel newsrooms create a unique connection between consumers and the Nase Adresa brand, said Gallo. “It creates trust.”

This collaborative engagement, has I think a great deal going for it. Especially if one draws the lens back to look upon a wider landscape, and recognise that organisations and brands that are prepared to devolve their power through collaborative processes, do that not only in a practical sense but a metaphorical one too. The symbol of something that listens and reciprocates is powerfully attractive. So I wonder, for hyper local news traditional media must either engage or die?

(More here)

I asked Alan the question as what he thought the deeper forces were that drive this quiet revolution towards mutuality. As in many ways, the presentation was a more mechanical description/observation on how this all worked. You can’t win – but I had to ask the question, as I believe that for many, the reasons we are in transition from one type of economy/society to another is central to understanding what comes next, and how to get there.

Which led onto other questions from the floor like, why would I buy your paper when I can get it for free online? and I feel uncomfortable that you are working with “non-expert journalists” surely this dissolves your authority and value? Or, I am canceling my Guardian subscription Rupert Murdoch has got to be right? Fascinating, because of the linear/industrial assumption of status conferred by title, authority assumed by some and taken away from others (all very hierarchical) – whereas Alan Rusbridger argued that the true skill of his journalists is in curation, aggregating and interpreting – and I think that is right. On the topic of co-evolved consumers as Kevin Kelly called them, I would prefer to think that citizen journalism in some ways relates to Richard Sennett’s idea about Craftsmanship. But I did get the sense that quite a few people in that room were at the early stages of the journey of understanding the full consequences of living and working in the network society. As Clay Shirkey wrote, Revolutions create a curious inversion of perception. This open platform approach to journalism and newsbrands that relates to the Guardian one can (read more here). And there was a very relevant question raised about data, its uses and implications form an ethical and legal perspective.

In Currency of information: the future of newspapers, I quoted Alan who wrote The future of newspapers is a bit like climate change: there are now far fewer ‘old-media’ deniers. Indeed, as its only when companies start to hemorrhage cash quarterly, and when the FO has done all cutting, in some instance through the bone that they say, OK what is it I need to do? I truly admire the Guardian, as they have consistently worked at evolving what it means to be a valued newsbrand in the networked society, and I equally admire Alan Rusbridger as editor of that newspaper, as under his stewardship the Guardian has responded to the challenges that were apparent some time ago. He did point out the journey for the Guardian has not been all plain sailing (reading between the lines here) but through dialogue internally and engaging in the debate – progress has been made, and continues to do so.

The project for Excellence in Journalism report stated

If older media sectors focus on profit-taking and stock price, they may do so at the expense of building the new technologies that are vital to the future. There are signs that that may be occurring.

what do we take from the old to combine with the new?

The only way to save journalism is to develop a new model that finds profit in truth, vigilance, and social responsibility,” Phil Meyer said.

That dull phrase, “new model,” includes stuff that is not dull at all. Like a different kind of company to work for, a better sense of how journalists can create value on the Web, a new and deeper commitment to interactivity with users as a way to do more kick-ass reporting.

My view is this, its not that the decline of the mass media (here) businesses could be completely averted, however, these companies could have been in a far better position to face a market place defined by what I call networked economics. Instead, these boards have attempted to squeeze more efficiency from the thinning value of their current business models. Though it would be a brave CEO to stand up and say, we are fucked, lets rethink our business model, for the simple reason that she or he – the CEO must talk up his or her business to the media, shareholders and analysts, and harvest the cash-flow for the quarterly numbers. The whole-scale tragedy is eventually failure to act in a timely fashion means that the road crash at the end is that more; final and ugly – for everyone. Lost jobs, lost lives, and a big black-hole for institutional investors wondering how they will ever get their pension funds back. The research findings from Communities Dominate Brands published in 2005 lead us to conclude that it is about: Connectivity, Culture, Community and Commerce. You can’t separate these anymore, without failing commercially.

The key points are in my humble opinion that:

[1] We live in a Read & Write culture

[2] We live in a participatory culture

[3] We live in a search economy and a semantic universe and refined data transforms how brands and people can find each other in more meaningful ways

[4] We live in the networked society Which also encompasses the glittering allure of the mobile society

This transformation Yochai Benkler argued is structural – challenging how businesses and markets will co-evolve over the oncoming decades.

[5] The networked society and the Read & Write culture dramatically alter the power relationships between society the media, and organisations.

“In the age of mass media, the press was able to define the sphere of legitimate debate with relative ease because the people on the receiving end were atomised  but connected ‘up’ to Big Media, but not, across to each other, and now that authority is eroding”, says Journalism Professor Jay Rosen

[6] That communication technology is political

Communication power, says Manuel Castells is at the heart of the structure and dynamics of society. By which he means, who has and who wields that power, can transform society. Communication technology is at the very heart of this current transformation of society – because we are seeking meaningful communication with each other, something that traditional media has failed to grasp, or crassly deployed it via Pop Idol and the X-Factor. The reality is that there there are consequences to this evolution.

[7] That interruptive, display, and image advertising is the junk mail of the 21st Century.

[8] There is no online and offline, there is no analogue vs. digital there is only blended reality – the crisis comes when there is no connectivity. Business models must reflect that fact. This also has implications for how organisations construct themselves.

[9] The language and therefore the literacy that defines this networked society is different to the straight line, siloed, industrial mass media, mass consumer language and literacy.

[10] Business value is defined by (a) being: life-enabling, life-simplifying and navigational (help me navigate through the complexity of my life), (b) business models are hybrid, (c) the 4C’s: commerce, culture, community, connectivity.

SMLXL archives on newspapers, newsbrands

You can view the release dates (here) And its fabulous.

A key point

…reasonable people may differ on what is the proper role of government in the regulation of media, or what limits – if any – should be placed on freedom of expression. Some civil libertarians object to laws allowing individuals to file civil lawsuits for libel or defamation, and certainly a case can be made that in the UK, for example – where the law allows a much broader range of action against media than in the US – that this unduly inhibits the press.

But international organisations or editorialists who take an absolutist or anarchist position with regard to countries such as Ecuador should apply the same standards to the US and other rich countries.

And

As Michael Copps, a commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission has emphasised: “Using the public airwaves is a privilege – a lucrative one – not a right.” He has argued, in the New York Times and elsewhere, that the US government should use its legal authority to deny the renewal of broadcast licenses to media outlets that do not honour their pledge to serve the public interest.

Food for thought:

As Jay Rosen posted last year

In the age of mass media, the press was able to define the sphere of legitimate debate with relative ease because the people on the receiving end were atomized connected “up” to Big Media but not across to each other. And now that authority is eroding.

Do news brands want the right to charge for the right to lie to you?

Straight line thinkers struggle in a world of no straight lines

Citizen journalism, truth, trust and power

The fall of Tom Daschle and the rise of public man

Analogue media pushes the panic button

And ultimately will our media look like this? Or indeed Pro-publica (wikipedia) and what migth be the consequences of that?

A blended reality approach is absolutely necessary

Of course, developing an active social media presence through Twitter and a Facebook Fan Page is critical to developing a readership. But for hyper-local journalists, face-to-face community building is also crucial to the mission. “When you’re ready to launch, make contact with community members you trust and respect as well as the local leaders who you’ll be covering to introduce your site,” says Larson. “Community support for your effort is critical, and having the respect and response from your sources will help you lead the pack.”

Networked economics and media

He tells his story of how the Peruvian Government has systematically attempted to deny indigenous tribes in the Rainforest their right for freedom of speech, and the right to live where they want to live. He talks about the colossal environmental damage done by mineral extraction in the Amazon, and why companies or governments behave they way they do because they think they are running behind closed doors operations. He describes the power of converged technologies of cooperation; that enable the Atwa to speak truth to power even as far afield as the Amazon, his story has lessons for us all. Technologies of pens and paper, and more sophisticated technologies that we describe with the moniker 2.0 bring transformation. Lessons around the nature and the shape of the organisation, lessons about truth, trust, power and politics, lessons about networked communications and the ability to take information from multiple sources and blend that into a powerful artifact of information. As Shakespeare wrote, the pen is mightier than the sword. This man, quiet and humble made a powerful impact upon me. He did not know that, and, I did not tell him. But his story like Gabriels’s slowly but powerfully, impacted over days, weeks and months, about what type of world we want to live in and that ultimately – that, what we create and that what we make, is down to us.

Gregor has worked on indigenous rights and environmental issues in the Peruvian Amazon for 9 years and is co-founder and advisor to the non-profit indigenous rights group Shinai. He spent 7 years living in Peru working with indigenous communities to defend their territory from incursions by illegal loggers and petroleum companies. He has worked with some of the most remote communities in the Amazon, including people who have only recently entered into contact with the outside world, helping them cope with and be in control of the changes in their society. He has campaigned for improved government policy to protect peoples still living in isolation from the outside world.

Gregor has extensive experience in participative territory mapping, facilitating communities to draw maps of their territory and why it is important to them and using GPS and satellite technologies in order to turn hand maps into detailed geographic representations of indigenous land use. Gregor has helped Achuar and Nahua communities in Peru and the Wapishan in Guyana to prepare these maps in order to communicate the importance of the rainforest to their way of life and support indigenous land claims.

Gregor has worked extensively with indigenous communities affected by oil drilling and oil exploration. With the Achuar people of the Corrientes river in Northern Peru Gregor helped set up a community run environmental monitoring programme, training local people to photograph, film and document oil spills with a GPS, use a computer to systematise the information and publicise the impact of oil drilling on indigenous communities.

Gregor currently works for US-based indigenous rights campaign organisation Amazon Watch as Peru Programme Coordinator. Gregor has received the Sting and Trudie Styler Award for human rights and the environment.

learning to manage communities can be a tricky business

I picked this up from a Jay Rosen tweet

Managing Online Communities: What Computer Games Can Teach Journalists

What does MMORG’s have to do with journalism? The answer according to the article is, everything.

MMORPGs don’t have much to offer in terms of developing the traditional journalism skills. These games can’t teach students how to vet sources, how to interview, how to copy edit, how to hit the streets and find stories.

What they can teach journalists is how to build, foster and interact with an online community. As news organizations and journalism schools struggle to find their way in the shifting, interactive landscape that seemingly appeared out of nowhere, the answers to many of their questions lie in the history of computer gaming.

The article mentions Richard Bartle, (website), (blog) one of the foremost experts on gaming and players. The article argues that it’s Bartle’s expertise where we can begin to learn about communities. Importantly Bartle made some key observations on player types,

The player types — Achievers, Explorers, Socializers and Killers — lay the foundation for not only what elements need to be present within a game community (although this can easily be extrapolated for any community) but also what precautions and rules need to be in place in order for these communities to thrive.

This “simple taxonomy”, as Bartle refers to it, enables community managers to begin to quantify the actions within any system and subtly shift the environment to encourage different actions, ones that are more conducive to community building. Community designers could, as Bartle said, tinker with what the players could do, change the rules of the world, create a more interactive environment or build more direct action. (Bartle, 1996)

The article goes on to mention the seminal work of Dave Weinbrger, Lawrence Lessig and Howard Rheingold

While each of those works examines communities ranging far outside the basic taxonomies, they each seem to agree on four basic principles for building communities and four basic rules for managing those communities. And that though these key thinkers were looking at different aspects of community, engagement, communication, technology etc., They did seem to come to a common point of view on some fundamental principals,

The four principles — Good Content, Simple Navigation, Simple Interfaces, Decentralized Controls (King, 2008) — align themselves with the Bartle’s Taxonomy in this way: The content is for achievers and explores, the navigation is for achievers, the interface is for socializers and the decentralized controls allows for the thwarting of killers.

The four rules — No Free Riding, Rules Compliance, Rewards, Ad-Hoc Growth (King, 2008) — not only offer guidelines for punishing Killers, but also for encouraging Achievers, Explorers and Socializers.

Which brings us onto community management – the community, a community, needs rules and it needs managing, the interface needs to be designed to encourage persistent interaction, for all key game player types. Just shoving stuff up online and hoping for the best, will not deliver the results one hopes for, I think is the key observation here.

Brad King author of the article makes therefore his summary,

In other words, the company treated the players as equal partners in the game process. They weren’t considered as an afterthought. They weren’t considered incidental to the process. They weren’t there to be the recipient of corporate-speak. They had a voice within the organization, a way to redress concerns and a way to provide constructive feedback that changed the way the developers upgraded the system.

That the game still continues, 12 years later, with more than 100,000 players is a testament to this system.

I rate this article highly, it has certainly helped me. It also in my opinion should be read by anyone wanting to study how to truly engage, one audience. All the hype about Social Media is such a poor substitute, to the key insights which underpin how and why people interact with each other in the networked participatory society.

Suggested reading:

Advice for regional news groups in the networked economy

Newsbrands of the 21st Century [1]

citizen journalism: truth, trust and power

SMLXL newsbrand / journalism archive

Nearly two-thirds — 63 percent — of Americans surveyed by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press believe that news stories are often inaccurate. That’s a flip from when Pew first asked that question in 1985, when 34 percent of respondents believed stories were frequently inaccurate.

Pew also found that 74 percent of respondents believe stories tend to favor one side of an issue over another, up from 66 percent two years ago.

The findings indicate U.S. newspapers and broadcasters could be alienating the audiences they are struggling to keep as they try to survive financial turmoil. Pew Research’s questionnaire didn’t attempt to gauge how shrinking newspapers and other cutbacks at news organizations are affecting people’s perceptions, though the reductions probably haven’t helped, said Michael Dimock, an associate director for the center.

I thought this was also interesting though hardly surprising,

Yet those who go online for national and international news also give the press relatively low ratings. Notably, 80% of the online news audience says that news stories are often inaccurate, which is only slightly less than the percentage of Fox News viewers (86%) and greater than the proportions of other news audiences expressing this view. In addition, 39% of those who say their main source of news is the internet say news organizations are declining in influence; that compares with roughly a third of Fox News and CNN viewers and smaller proportions of those who rely on network news and newspapers.

However,

Though the public is increasingly critical of news media organizations, most people think it would be an important loss if major news sources shut down.

More than eight-in-ten Americans (82%) say that if all local television news programs went off the air – and shut down their web sites– it would be an important loss.

I wonder how we feel about that issue in the UK? We wring our hands about giving up local democracy, as local newspapers shut down (replaced by local council broadsheets), we deny the freedom of the press – an attitude that has prevailed in northern Europe since the dawn of representative democracy. Yet at the same time media owners have struggled to readjust to market conditions. Yet how free is the media? And how representative is it of important news and information? In 2006 I posted this,

Over a ten-month period, the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) documented television newsrooms’ use of 36 video news releases (VNRs)—a small sample of the thousands produced each year. CMD identified 77 television stations, from those in the largest to the smallest markets, that aired these VNRs or related satellite media tours (SMTs) in 98 separate instances, without disclosure to viewers. Collectively, these 77 stations reach more than half of the U.S. population.

The VNRs and SMTs whose broadcast CMD documented were produced by three broadcast PR firms for 49 different clients, including General Motors, Intel, Pfizer and Capital One. In each case, these 77 television stations actively disguised the sponsored content to make it appear to be their own reporting. In almost all cases, stations failed to balance the clients’ messages with independently-gathered footage or basic journalistic research. More than one-third of the time, stations aired the pre-packaged VNR in its entirety.

Although the number of media formats and outlets has exploded in recent years, television remains the dominant news source in the United States. More than three-quarters of U.S. adults rely on local TV news, and more than 70 percent turn to network TV or cable news on a daily or near-daily basis, according to a January 2006 Harris Poll. The quality and integrity of television reporting thus significantly impacts the public’s ability to evaluate everything from consumer products to medical services to government policies.

To reach this audience—and to add a veneer of credibility to clients’ messages—the public relations industry uses video news releases (VNRs). VNRs are pre-packaged “news” segments and additional footage created by broadcast PR firms, or by publicists within corporations or government agencies. VNRs are designed to be seamlessly integrated into newscasts, and are freely provided to TV stations. Although the accompanying information sent to TV stations identifies the clients behind the VNRs, nothing in the material for broadcast does. Without strong disclosure requirements and the attention and action of TV station personnel, viewers cannot know when the news segment they’re watching was bought and paid for by the very subjects of that “report.”

Further

1). VNRs are aired in TV markets of all sizes

2). TV stations don’t disclose VNRs to viewers

3). TV stations disguise VNRs as their own reporting

4). TV stations don’t supplement VNR footage or verify VNR claims

5). The vast majority of VNRs are produced for corporate clients

6). Satellite media tours may accompany VNRs

So where does that leave us? I am not so sure