Check out this great video from PPH's Digital Expansion Initiative.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Monday, July 7, 2008
Celebrating Independence and Interdependence on the Web
Over this Independence Day weekend, I spent some time thinking about what we celebrate every July 4th. Obviously, there are the historic events of a nation state founded in rebellion against monarchical authority and a revolutionary document declaring independence from that authority. As we gathered with our family and our friends to gaze at a sky made brilliant by fire and sulfur, did we stop to consider the state of independence today? Is independence simply a legacy inherited from our long departed founders? I think not. If our history tells us anything, it is that our independence, rights, and liberties are never complete; they are always the fruit of long struggles, both personal and collective. What contemporary authorities must we challenge today as we work for a better world tomorrow? And what, today, deserves our celebration as we honor the spirit of independence?
According to Merriam Webster:
in·de·pen·dent
Pronunciation:
\ˌin-də-ˈpen-dənt\
Function: adjective
1: not dependent: as a (1): not subject to control by others : self-governing...
One space where individuals and communities can experience the challenges and opportunities of independent self-governance is the World Wide Web. As outlined in the Future of Music Manifesto, digital technologies and the web have created a space for musicians and their audiences to connect�, independent of the large music industry conglomerates that had previously dictated the terms of the music market for both creators and fans. It has turned the profession and industry of journalism upside down, while opening new territory for citizen journalists and independent media. From the pioneering grassroots journalists in the global Independent Media Center network, to the contemporary global political blogosphere curated by Global Voices, people are learning that they can do more than consume media messages produced by large and remote corporations - they can declare their independence and be the media. Using the Web, people connect to each other and create innovate ways to tell the stories that matter most to them.
On July 4th, we celebrate the independence of the US. On September 22, One Web Day gives us a chance to celebrate how the Web to empowers individuals and communities to claim ever more independence and liberty. It will be celebrated in cities and towns all over the world.
The idea of celebrating "the Web" might sound, at first, a bit too abstract. What are we celebrating? Web pages, links, lolcats? Is it about the servers, routers, and technical protocols that push electronic bits around the globe? These things have a lot to do with "the Web," but ultimately, they are the means, not the end. By bringing people together in celebration, One Web Day shows us the human face of the Web. For a spider, the power of a web is not in the strands of silk, but in their intricate interconnectedness. For our increasingly global society, the same is true of the Web: its power lies in the connections it builds between people, the linking of stories and voices and human relationships. It is about the flip-side of independence, which I believe is interdependence, for we can never face the power of illegitimate authority alone. To the degree that the Web strengthens our interdependence and our ability to struggle for independence, I think that's something worth celebrating.
As we prepare to celebrate One Web Day, let us also take the time to ask what authorities would stifle the liberating potential of the Web. As One Web Day founder, Susan Crawford, has tirelessly argued, there are any number of Internet gatekeepers who would quell the rising tide of independence and freedom on the Web. Just as our founders questioned the political and moral authority of the monarch, so we should challenge those forces that today claim the power to determine the future of the Internet and the World Wide Web. It should go without saying that we also need to do a better job than the founders in fighting for the inclusion of everyone in the digital world we are building.
Can one day accomplish all of this? One day will not be enough. However, we must start somewhere, and One Web Day gives us the opportunity to focus our attention and energy on the promise and challenge we face building a Web that engenders the ideals of independence and freedom. One Web Day is September 22. I hope you will join me in celebration of and in struggle for One Web for All.
According to Merriam Webster:
in·de·pen·dent
Pronunciation:
\ˌin-də-ˈpen-dənt\
Function: adjective
1: not dependent: as a (1): not subject to control by others : self-governing...
One space where individuals and communities can experience the challenges and opportunities of independent self-governance is the World Wide Web. As outlined in the Future of Music Manifesto, digital technologies and the web have created a space for musicians and their audiences to connect�, independent of the large music industry conglomerates that had previously dictated the terms of the music market for both creators and fans. It has turned the profession and industry of journalism upside down, while opening new territory for citizen journalists and independent media. From the pioneering grassroots journalists in the global Independent Media Center network, to the contemporary global political blogosphere curated by Global Voices, people are learning that they can do more than consume media messages produced by large and remote corporations - they can declare their independence and be the media. Using the Web, people connect to each other and create innovate ways to tell the stories that matter most to them.
On July 4th, we celebrate the independence of the US. On September 22, One Web Day gives us a chance to celebrate how the Web to empowers individuals and communities to claim ever more independence and liberty. It will be celebrated in cities and towns all over the world.
The idea of celebrating "the Web" might sound, at first, a bit too abstract. What are we celebrating? Web pages, links, lolcats? Is it about the servers, routers, and technical protocols that push electronic bits around the globe? These things have a lot to do with "the Web," but ultimately, they are the means, not the end. By bringing people together in celebration, One Web Day shows us the human face of the Web. For a spider, the power of a web is not in the strands of silk, but in their intricate interconnectedness. For our increasingly global society, the same is true of the Web: its power lies in the connections it builds between people, the linking of stories and voices and human relationships. It is about the flip-side of independence, which I believe is interdependence, for we can never face the power of illegitimate authority alone. To the degree that the Web strengthens our interdependence and our ability to struggle for independence, I think that's something worth celebrating.
As we prepare to celebrate One Web Day, let us also take the time to ask what authorities would stifle the liberating potential of the Web. As One Web Day founder, Susan Crawford, has tirelessly argued, there are any number of Internet gatekeepers who would quell the rising tide of independence and freedom on the Web. Just as our founders questioned the political and moral authority of the monarch, so we should challenge those forces that today claim the power to determine the future of the Internet and the World Wide Web. It should go without saying that we also need to do a better job than the founders in fighting for the inclusion of everyone in the digital world we are building.
Can one day accomplish all of this? One day will not be enough. However, we must start somewhere, and One Web Day gives us the opportunity to focus our attention and energy on the promise and challenge we face building a Web that engenders the ideals of independence and freedom. One Web Day is September 22. I hope you will join me in celebration of and in struggle for One Web for All.
Friday, July 4, 2008
The Newseum: Best Seen from theTop Down
My folks toured the Capitol last week, and a friend of theirs treated us to a visit to the Newseum. I was glad for a chance to see it, because I know that the Newseum is giving thousands of DC tourists an education in the history, practice, and purpose of journalism, and I wanted to know just what kind of education it offers.
Before entering, I laid out a very simple set of criteria for judging the merits of the museum. First, by whether it meets its own mission, to provide "a forum where the media and the public can gain a better understanding of each other." Second, by asking of each of its exhibits, what argument does it make and to whose benefit?
Upon entering the Newseum, you get a pretty clear idea of how the answer to the second question is going to come out, as you are confronted by a granite wall bearing the names of the founders and funders of the museum, a cabal of media giants that includes the New York Times, Bloomberg, Comcast, Cox, Hearst, ABC News (aka the Disney Corporation), NBC News (aka General Electric), Time Warner, and the Annenberg and Knight foundations for some nonprofit credibility. The entity behind the Newseum is the Freedom Forum, the philanthropic arm of newspaper mogul, Frank E. Gannett's empire. (For a handy guide to these communications empires, check out the Columbia Journalism Review's guide to media ownership).
As we were getting oriented to the 643,000-square-foot space, a friendly guide instructed us to view the introductory film in the lowest level first, then take the elevator to the top level, as the museum "is best seen from the top down." The orientation film is a fast, splashy ad for the news industry. What is news, it asks? Great "firsts," war, peace, love, hate, life, and death, all the great human themes distilled to their most iconic, information-free state. According to the film, there are "big lives" and small ones, good wars and bad. As visitors will be reminded throughout their time in the Newseum, "news" is intimately tied to "Freedom," the single-word lyric to the cheesy anthem that rings in the ears as the film closes.
The space is topped by an impressive terrace offering grandiose views of Capitol Building, the National Gallery of Art, and other Smithsonian properties. Welcome to the lofty heights, folks, leave your sense of self-empowerment at the door, and prepared to be awed and overwhelmed.
The collection is indeed large and impressive, including 4 full pieces of the Berlin Wall, a 3,000 year old Cuneiform brick from Sumeria, perfectly preserved newspapers dating from the early history of the printing press to the current day, and a beautiful and poignant gallery of Pulitzer Prize-winning photography. Also, the space is brimming with dozens of interactive, multimedia infotainment devices like the NBC News Interactive Newsroom, where "you can be a star," but I didn't pay much attention to these.
I was looking for any scrap of critical reflection on the social and political impact of the news industry, and I found some scraps. I was surprised to find a few panels in the opening exhibit that discuss bias in the news, mistakes, frauds, and the ownership and control of news outlets. Of course, in the bias panel, What Liberal Media? was placed side-by-side with Bernard Goldberg's Bias. Mother Jones reports on a Newseum film concerning news bias that is funded by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. I didn't see it, but I can just imagine it was as fair and balanced as the "news" pouring out of Murdoch's properties. As for mistakes and frauds, according to the Newseum, these are the exceptions that prove the rule of journalistic excellence, and infamous news frauds like Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair are just so many bad apples.
On media ownership and consolidation, a display correctly tells visitors that we live in an era of unprecedented consolidation in the news and media industries, where a handful of companies "with little or now background in news" have rapidly acquired the majority of news properties. But that's about as deep as it gets. Why is the media consolidated? How did it happen? There is no mention of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that initiated this wave of consolidation, the aggressive and well-funded lobbying for consolidation by groups like the National Association of Broadcasters, or the history of bad policies coming out of an FCC captured by industry interests, an FCC often antagonistic to the public interest. The display leaves it to the viewer to figure it out. Maybe media consolidation is like the weather, just something that happens, nothing I can do about it.
Later, in the "First Amendment Gallery," we learn that "the First Amendment only restricts the government from interfering with free speech. It does not apply to private companies."
These subtle nods to the ever tightening corporate control over the flow of information in society are present, but I fear most attendees will miss them or forget them as larger, flashier messages intrude. As if to cleanse the mind of these darker aspects of the contemporary news industry, visitors quickly find themselves in the 9/11 Gallery, confronted by a large piece of the World Trade Center, twisted and tortured by the attack of that historic day. And then, of course, there is a film. Let me quickly say 2 things: remembering the attacks and the heroism of those who responded is important, and many journalists are to be commended for sharing in that heroism. In the theater, I sat near to a young boy who probably wasn't alive in 2001, and I could tell he was learning a lot from the reporters telling their stories from ground zero.
On the other hand, the exhibit and film definitely approached a "shock and awe" persuasive strategy, and I know I left in a daze, exhausted, my critical faculties dulled for rest of my experience. If one didn't enter the Newseum with some critical faculties to start with, I don't think they would develop them after being exposed to this exhibit.
Hundreds of journalists rendered an impeccable service on 9/11 in the face of the worst of human horrors? True.
The fact of that service establishes all journalists and their corporate overseers as ever vigilant, ever courageous? False.
Somewhere between September 11, 2001 and the aggressive march to war that followed, I think that most journalists in the mainstream media lost their nerve. And that's all I'll say about that.
Overall, the narrative of the Newseum is about scale. At every turn, the visitor is confronted by giant screens, full size news helicopters, satellites, and news vans. The world is big, you are small. The world is remote, we bring it to you. The world is too complex for you, we simplify it for you. Also, did we mention "Freedom?" We have a lot of it here in the USA. Go, USA!
Like so much of the news today, the Newseum celebrates the overwhelming, the iconic, and the spectacular at the expense of the substantive, the challenging, and the truly educational.
What is the Newseum good for? While there is plenty of valuable material inside, I believe the Newseum serves primarily to say "you are free, America, and your freedom is brought to you by Newscorps, Time Warner, and the Disney Corporation."
Before entering, I laid out a very simple set of criteria for judging the merits of the museum. First, by whether it meets its own mission, to provide "a forum where the media and the public can gain a better understanding of each other." Second, by asking of each of its exhibits, what argument does it make and to whose benefit?
Upon entering the Newseum, you get a pretty clear idea of how the answer to the second question is going to come out, as you are confronted by a granite wall bearing the names of the founders and funders of the museum, a cabal of media giants that includes the New York Times, Bloomberg, Comcast, Cox, Hearst, ABC News (aka the Disney Corporation), NBC News (aka General Electric), Time Warner, and the Annenberg and Knight foundations for some nonprofit credibility. The entity behind the Newseum is the Freedom Forum, the philanthropic arm of newspaper mogul, Frank E. Gannett's empire. (For a handy guide to these communications empires, check out the Columbia Journalism Review's guide to media ownership).
As we were getting oriented to the 643,000-square-foot space, a friendly guide instructed us to view the introductory film in the lowest level first, then take the elevator to the top level, as the museum "is best seen from the top down." The orientation film is a fast, splashy ad for the news industry. What is news, it asks? Great "firsts," war, peace, love, hate, life, and death, all the great human themes distilled to their most iconic, information-free state. According to the film, there are "big lives" and small ones, good wars and bad. As visitors will be reminded throughout their time in the Newseum, "news" is intimately tied to "Freedom," the single-word lyric to the cheesy anthem that rings in the ears as the film closes.
The space is topped by an impressive terrace offering grandiose views of Capitol Building, the National Gallery of Art, and other Smithsonian properties. Welcome to the lofty heights, folks, leave your sense of self-empowerment at the door, and prepared to be awed and overwhelmed.
The collection is indeed large and impressive, including 4 full pieces of the Berlin Wall, a 3,000 year old Cuneiform brick from Sumeria, perfectly preserved newspapers dating from the early history of the printing press to the current day, and a beautiful and poignant gallery of Pulitzer Prize-winning photography. Also, the space is brimming with dozens of interactive, multimedia infotainment devices like the NBC News Interactive Newsroom, where "you can be a star," but I didn't pay much attention to these.
I was looking for any scrap of critical reflection on the social and political impact of the news industry, and I found some scraps. I was surprised to find a few panels in the opening exhibit that discuss bias in the news, mistakes, frauds, and the ownership and control of news outlets. Of course, in the bias panel, What Liberal Media? was placed side-by-side with Bernard Goldberg's Bias. Mother Jones reports on a Newseum film concerning news bias that is funded by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. I didn't see it, but I can just imagine it was as fair and balanced as the "news" pouring out of Murdoch's properties. As for mistakes and frauds, according to the Newseum, these are the exceptions that prove the rule of journalistic excellence, and infamous news frauds like Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair are just so many bad apples.
On media ownership and consolidation, a display correctly tells visitors that we live in an era of unprecedented consolidation in the news and media industries, where a handful of companies "with little or now background in news" have rapidly acquired the majority of news properties. But that's about as deep as it gets. Why is the media consolidated? How did it happen? There is no mention of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that initiated this wave of consolidation, the aggressive and well-funded lobbying for consolidation by groups like the National Association of Broadcasters, or the history of bad policies coming out of an FCC captured by industry interests, an FCC often antagonistic to the public interest. The display leaves it to the viewer to figure it out. Maybe media consolidation is like the weather, just something that happens, nothing I can do about it.
Later, in the "First Amendment Gallery," we learn that "the First Amendment only restricts the government from interfering with free speech. It does not apply to private companies."
These subtle nods to the ever tightening corporate control over the flow of information in society are present, but I fear most attendees will miss them or forget them as larger, flashier messages intrude. As if to cleanse the mind of these darker aspects of the contemporary news industry, visitors quickly find themselves in the 9/11 Gallery, confronted by a large piece of the World Trade Center, twisted and tortured by the attack of that historic day. And then, of course, there is a film. Let me quickly say 2 things: remembering the attacks and the heroism of those who responded is important, and many journalists are to be commended for sharing in that heroism. In the theater, I sat near to a young boy who probably wasn't alive in 2001, and I could tell he was learning a lot from the reporters telling their stories from ground zero.
On the other hand, the exhibit and film definitely approached a "shock and awe" persuasive strategy, and I know I left in a daze, exhausted, my critical faculties dulled for rest of my experience. If one didn't enter the Newseum with some critical faculties to start with, I don't think they would develop them after being exposed to this exhibit.
Hundreds of journalists rendered an impeccable service on 9/11 in the face of the worst of human horrors? True.
The fact of that service establishes all journalists and their corporate overseers as ever vigilant, ever courageous? False.
Somewhere between September 11, 2001 and the aggressive march to war that followed, I think that most journalists in the mainstream media lost their nerve. And that's all I'll say about that.
Overall, the narrative of the Newseum is about scale. At every turn, the visitor is confronted by giant screens, full size news helicopters, satellites, and news vans. The world is big, you are small. The world is remote, we bring it to you. The world is too complex for you, we simplify it for you. Also, did we mention "Freedom?" We have a lot of it here in the USA. Go, USA!
Like so much of the news today, the Newseum celebrates the overwhelming, the iconic, and the spectacular at the expense of the substantive, the challenging, and the truly educational.
What is the Newseum good for? While there is plenty of valuable material inside, I believe the Newseum serves primarily to say "you are free, America, and your freedom is brought to you by Newscorps, Time Warner, and the Disney Corporation."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
