Friday, June 20, 2008

Allied Media Conference

Checking in from Detroit and the 10th Annual Allied Media Conference, the place to meet people working on "media strategies for a more just and creative world." For once, I'm one of the oldest people in attendance.

This morning, I sat in on the "Be the Web: Using Web 2.0 innovations to organize and connect" session. I liked a comparison the presenter made between hierarchical and folksonomical data organization, where he showed us a Web form he'd had to use for an employer to report demographic data (gender, ethnicity, etc.). He said that he felt like folksonomies and tagging are closer to representing our complex identities than these nested data boxes (ie, male, single, caucasion, etc.). I'd never heard someone link Web 2.0 design principles to identity politics, so that was interesting. Wouldn't it be cool to gather folksonomical demographic data for an organization? It could generate a tag cloud to represent the multiple, overlapping identities collected within the membership of the organization. Something like that...

He talked about del.icio.us and twitter, but I always like to learn about new apps and wasn't disappointed. He talked about jott and tumblr. Jott uses voice recognition to interface with email, listserves, feeds, you name it. It can push, it can be pulled; in other words, it can add telephony (land or cell) to your organizer's bag of tricks. Tumblr is the main app for tumbleblogging (new to me, too), or posting short burst, multi-media files, like Twitter, I think, but with pics, vids, and audio files.

A number of issues came up: security, privacy and the reliance on corporate tools and platforms, connecting Web 2.0 organizing to work with communities without access. I warned the group that they have to move away from thinking that they are shifting from old school organizing to these tools, but that it is always adding new layers, and once you start using the new tools, you commit to alway adding these new layers. Email is irrelevant to most 14 year olds. These tools, because they are proprietary, corporate domains (API's or no) and because every individual connects to her or his own favorite mix of platforms, can never attain perfect reach. Using these tools, organizers have to remember they are building and activating social networks overlaid and dependent upon the platforms they choose to engage. Organizers need to be careful that the suite of tools they decide to use don't create gaps of non-interoperability in the social networks they are building. This means you have to be careful using the radical tools, like crabgrass, too. Corporate platforms can come with complications, but, as large and densely populated networks they have reach.

None of this is easy. Must. avoid. shiny. object. syndrome.

I will be starting to use crabgrass for a project soon. More on that as I use it.

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Beyond Broadcast: Larry Irving Keynote

Again, I had to pass through American University's walled-garden-connectivity-hell hoops to get online, so I haven't been able to record the key points, which is a darn shame, because this is a good talk!

Larry Irving is doing a great job challenging some of what we've heard about funding and business model, reminding us, James Wilson did, that we need a media space independent from commercial pressures, driven by discursive necessities and democratic logic. This is especially true, because the advertising market values people differently depending on race and gender and class, and reliance on advertising dollars is a dependence on masters who don't value everyone equally. Why does this even have to be said?

Even further, he's talked about how even foundations can pull the funding if they don't like the message.

Now he's talking about the wireless revolution and the need to open white spaces.

I'm remembering now that I say him talk at the Rainbow PUSH Media & Telecommunications Symposium, moderating a panel of telecom execs and one guy from Pew Internet and American life. I remember the panel being highlighted by a bunch of softball questions and plenty of time for the execs to talk about everything they were doing to deepen broadband penetration.

Now, this guy is on fire. You can find his agenda here.

More on white spaces and the NAB: Larry is advising that people who care about white spaces should throw in with Google on the policy fight. BUt he also makes the point that you might have to go your separate ways on other issues.

Beyond Broadcast 2: Mapping the Money

Diane Mermigas: "Your stars are perfectly aligned with where the Internet is and where digital media is taking us..." Diane just suggested that people here are grassroots... She said, "When I sit down with Rupert Murdoch and some other big media guys, they're full of questions."

Well, I guess if you're sitting down with Rupert Murdoch, the CPB might look grassroots.

"None of the institutions... have [learned] to really integrate" the interactivity that's possible.

Diane is recommending that public broadcasters put their content online and attach ads. It was more nuanced than that, but that's what it boils down to, I think.

Keith Hopper: Follow Google's lead - build your audience and user interaction, then monetize it.

Craig Reigel: Paying people is important, sustainable business models are important. "Bringing in revenue needs to be decriminalized." Some revenue seeking "disrupts mission, some don't."

Four ways for media orgs make money
1) Participate in commerce
2) Advertising
3) Specific support from people with vested interest
4) Take investers' dollars with some promise for sustainability, spend the money, then go bankrupt

Vince Stehle: Radiohead experiment, pay what you will. "Public radio has been doing that for decades." He's just got something wrong - that one can listen to most of an album on Myspace; this isn't how it happens in my experience. Even small indie bands only put up a couple of teaser songs.

James Wilson: Democracy rests on free, independent, transparent press; media is going through turmoil - ergo "We might be seeing democracy at risk." We need to reintroduce "representation, openness, freedom" into these conversations about business models.

This is a political process - "I can assure you that the NAB has agenda... the MPAA has an agenda, and if you don't have agenda, you're going to lose." At which point, I said "hear, hear" a little too loudly.

James brings up NCMR, and the 3k+ participant. Media makers aren't engaging with the activists. Here, here!

Beyond Broadcast

Getting online and getting power has been such a headache... I actually have a headache now, so I'm just going to capture the occasional snippet today and maybe to write something more reflective on Beyond Broadcast later.

Henry Jenkins, Convergence Culture:

"Media is a technical platform and a social and cultural platform

Who gets to participate in participatory culture? Access, skillsets, empowerment questions create and bolster gaps.


Saturday, June 7, 2008

NCMR 14: Winning Tech and Media Policy Fights in the States

Amina is talking on the state "Winning Tech and Media Policy Reform in the States" panel now.

Because states can be a faster catalyst for legislative change and ideas can move from state legislative bodies to the Federal level, "It's absolutely crucial the this work begins at the state level." This is an interesting point: states can protect consumers at a level that the federal never can, because state governments are accessible and more connected to people's lives on the ground.

I hope someone talks about influencing organizations like the US Conference of Mayors and National Conference of State Legislatures. If not, I'll ask about it.

Cool - WA State Senator Kohl-Welles is up. On the plane, her neighbor asked "aren't there more important things to spend money on" than broadband deployment; when she said she was concerned about connectivity in rural places, he replied "well, can't those people just move somewhere else?"

The Senator mentions a Cascade Curtain, referring to the break between Western and Eastern Washington. I'd never heard that phrase; of course I'm usually just griping about the east side of the state.

She talks Connect Kentucky in a positive light. I hear bad things about that program but haven't been able to look into yet. Finally she talks about a community technology opportunity program.

Ah, our facilitator is walking us through the problems with Connect Kentucky. Here's one - confidentiality provisions block the publis from verifying the state's study of connectivity.

Next up is Catherine Settanni, The Community Technology Empowerment Project. She works locally and launched Minneapolis' free wi-fi network, which includes a community portal. She has a great idea about pressuring the states to ensure that any time taxpayers' money is spent to move something online, it has to include a set aside for digital inclusion efforts.

Susan Satter, senior assistant attorney general in Illinois, is the final presenter. Got distracted for a minute, but tuned in again to hear that Susan thinks that state utility commissions are highly vulnerable to capture, due to being appointed positions, and a point about attorneys general being resources advocates can use, especially in their role as consumer complaint arbitrators.

Senator Kohl-Welles and Julie answered my question:
  • The senator is an executive of the NCSL, and says that our agenda is starting to come through. She also mentioned that Ron Simms, King County Executive, published an op-ed calling for a national digital inclusion strategy to be developed at NCSL
  • Julie reminds us that state legislators very often are motivated by a spirit of public service, but they are often pressed and some times working other jobs, even, and if we want to influence them, we have to provide the model legislation, the messaging, and an opportunity to be a hero on our issues.
Beth is now asking if there are things cities and states could do better if the federal government made some changes, for instance improving e-rate and lifting the ban on schools and libraries from offering their networks to the broader community. The answer is "yes" on e-rate from Catherine. Other opportunities might include getting more fed money for broadband mapping (in the Farm bill), but also fixing the fact that, apparently, there is more federal money for mapping than actual deployment. There is another bill on infrastucture in the House now that includes some money that localities could use to improve digital access.

Friday, June 6, 2008

NCMR 13: A little self-promotion for good measure

I am putting together a "self-organized" session during the conference. Tentatively looking at using the Sunday, 9:30-11 slot. If you're reading and interested, I hope you'll come. The outline is below...


Understanding Collaboration in Media Change Movements


Organizations that work to create a better media system through media policy advocacy, grassroots organizing, media literacy training, and independent media production are increasingly working with each other across organizational boundaries to attain shared goals, leverage the respective strengths of their partner organizations, and build a more interconnected, robust and responsive movement that reflects the diversity of our communities and strategies. While we rightly celebrate and learn from the positive outcomes of our collaborative endeavors, we rarely reflect on the process of collaboration itself. Besides evaluating the "end product," how do we know if a collaboration has moved our larger strategic goals forward? What are the challenges, costs, and opportunities of collaborative projects? If successful collaborations rely on the relationships between the individuals involved, how do we evaluate and document the practices that make collaborations successful to share that learning with new collaborative partners and to ensure that our organizations can call upon institutional learning with or without the presence of the original players?

In this session, we will have an interactive discussion and begin to earnestly assess how we go about planning, implementing, evaluating, and documenting our collaborations. This conversation will lay the groundwork for a long term project to produce a document that organizations can use to enhance their collaborations, including a taxonomy of collaborative models, a set of "best practices" guidelines, and an evaluation and documentation framework .

Thursday, June 5, 2008

NCMR 12: Historical and Contemporary Challenges, continued

Angela Campbell, Institute for Public Representation:

What are the unfavorable consequences of social science research in the media reform movement? Better research won't necessarily lead to better policy.

Policy process at the FCC:
  • FCC gives public notice and request for comment (Notice for Proposed Rule Making or NPRMs), but it is usually industry that intervenes in the comment process
  • The FCC issues a decision
  • Which can be appealed in court
The FCC is not a neutral fact finder. Appointments are political, and the agency is vulnerable to aggressive lobbying.

The role of 3rd party studies at the FCC:
  • Industry studies are often preferred in the first place
  • If reformers have a study, the FCC will cite "conflicting evidence," and industry wins
  • The industry has more studies, and industry wins
Solutions
  • FCC should conduct it's own studies or commission them. Unfortunately under Powell and Martin, this process hasn't worked very well. For instance, Pritchard was commissioned to submit a study that was based on previously published, industry funded study. Academics should support FCC data collection, but they should also monitor it.
  • Make proprietary industry data publicly available.
  • Legislate that FCC relies on better quality data. The Data Quality Act was not in effect in the 2002 media ownership review. By the time it took effect, it slowed the process, but it didn't stop the FCC from following the Republican majority's predetermined plan.
I don't know. These solutions so far don't seem to be working; every solution can be and has been skewed.

NCMR 11: Historical and Contemporary Challenges, continued

Victor's starting his presentation of historical precedent in the 1940s. "We come to learn that our current policies are the product of political practices, not best practices." Say it!

"Early on, there was a social contract between media institutions, the public, and the state."

Victor is establishing that
  • Public discourse criticizing radio in both the left press, but in popular venues like Reader's Digest
  • There was a coalition of disgruntled intellectuals, labor, women's groups and others
  • This coalition coalesced around a laundry list of complaints that should be familiar to any of us today
  • Results include the 49 fairness doctrine, in unpublished government proceedings, proposals as radical as public utility, community run newspapers were being considered
  • Unfortunately, the social contract that developed priveleged media producers
Why did the movement fail?
  • Failed to coordinate activists, especially between DC-based and grassroots groups
  • Dramatic rightward shift in national economic discourse, ie corporatism (alliance between big business, big government, and big labor)
  • Progressives moved away from structural criticism to focus on policing content
I can't tell any more if he's talking history or braking news in the media movement.

3 lessons:
  • Solidarity, as reformers become more aggressive, the national-grassroots coordination becomes more important
  • Recognize connections to larger political and economic forces
  • We ignore recurring structural problems at our peril, ie "we give the audience what they want," "the Internet is solving everything"
To step back a bit, I just have to wonder if Victor's intimacy with the current movement hasn't sent him seeking parallels in history, but I'm no expert in historiography.

Still, awesome presentation.

NCMR08 9

I hate academic presentations that are read from the presenter's paper. I know it's the norm, especially in the humanities, but it's just ineffective public speaking.

This is my subject matter, I'm a quick study/information sponge/sharp analyst; I'm a fast typer. If I can't record your major points, you're doing something wrong.

Here's a project: better training for comms grad students in public speaking and presentation techniques. True, the more seasoned professionals give a good talk, but younger communications scholars should be amazing spokespersons for their own work, at the very least, if not for the advocacy community in general.

NCMR08 8: Digital Technology Challenges - Net Neutrality

Ok, I'm tuning in time to blog Brian Dolber, UofI, whose paper is called "'Divide and Conquer': The Racial Politics of the COPE Act and the Network Neutrality Debate."

Claim: the telecoms lobby divided the African American advocates community on the COPE Act. Somehow he's connecting this to Gandy's Panoptic Sort argument, but again so quickly the argumentative chain was hard to follow. Here's a case where a simple, well designed slide presentation would have helped.

Brian's outline of the lobby's strategy:

NCMR08 7: Independent Media session, continued

Caroline Nappo, UofI, Librarianship as Media Reform. She's talking about access to alternative collections. Libraries are part of the sustenance of independent media. She's also making some great points about how the history of the library is consistent with the democratic communications theory that drives most of our community's work, again so rapid fire I can't catch it all.

She has a good beat on where the ALA is on these issues, and I want to follow up with her. I pass the ALA building almost every day in DC and regularly wonder about bringing them into our work.

What is the ALA doing? It has not "problemitized oligopolistic media control." I can see that and want to figure it out.

NCMR08 6: Sustaining Independent Media

Unfortunately, I couldn't find the room in time, so I've arrived late for Tracy Van Slyke and Jessica Clark's presentation on their progressive media mapping and impact measurement project presentation.

Tracy: "It's a time of experimentation, but there are questions about how we measure the impact of our work."

Traditional metrics:
  • Money
  • Attention
  • Buzz
  • Credibility
New categories:
  • Mainstreaming an issue
  • Taking it to the Hill
  • Combining pop and politics: pop culture as a "beat" to uncover political consequences
  • Reaching nontraditional audiences
  • Fighting the right
  • Uncovering the news: covering missing stories
  • Pioneering new journalism models: creating projects that push the boundaries of "traditional objective journalism," crowdsourcing, live blogging, etc
  • Chasing the tech: harnessing new platforms
  • Challenging the story
  • Building infrastructure
  • Poking the bear: from WAM! - to force reaction from the other side to generate buzz. Nice.
Check the work out at www.buildtheecho.net.

Adam Davis, Southern Illinois Universty on Current TV. Current is Al Gore's adventure in user-generated media, launched in 2005, reaching 41 mil homes in the US. Viewers are still only producing 1/3 of the content. Adam's question: "Is current TV a new model for public access and what do Gore and investors stand to gain?"
  • User generated content is cheap
  • Turned profitable in 2 years
Adam relies on Habermas' conclusion that the public sphere must be completely independent of the commercial sphere, and he has assembled an impressive collection of instances of commercial warping of the public-spirited concept of Current TV. His tone is pointed, but I have to wonder - why didn't we do it first? Is there room in our work for for-profit models for user-generated new media? What if that model was intended to create synergies between progressive media and socially conscious businesses? Respected progressive print outlets do this.

In the audience, there is scoffing when we are confronted with the enthusiastic blurbs of Gore and his marketing partners' commentary on their business model. I haven't investigated Current TV and have no judgments on it, but I don't know how productive knee jerk reactions to the realities of the corporate sector in this space can be.

There's a rarely spoken inconsistency unveiled here, today already, and I think I'll continue to see it throughout the conference. On the one hand, we recoil at the intrusions of commercial incentives in the media system. On the other hand, we know we are embedded in the system that generates those incentives and embrace measures like tax incentives to increase minority ownership of commercial outlets. Personally, I'm undecided, possibly ambivalent, on the issue, but there hasn't been a larger dialog that identifies and articulates this inconsistency. I don't know that such a dialog is immediately necessary or that community-wide consistency is possible or necessary, but I feel like I encounter this question all of the time.

NCMR08 5: "Media Reform" Targets Conservatives

We interrupt this wonkiness (which I love) to inform you that some conservative blogger is onto us! We're caught RED handed. They know the score; we've all gathered here to use "the power of the federal government to hand over more media properties to liberals."

Damn, the gig is up.

NCMR08 4: FACT, continuation

Krishna Jayakar, "I'm a member of the Penn State mafia." Universal service!

Four programs:
  • Lifeline and Linkup
  • Schools and Libraries (E-rate)
  • High Cost Areas
  • Rural Health Care
This money comes from end-user fees, to the tune of $7.4 billion over the last four quarters. However, Universal Service Fund (USF) expenses has steadily increased while telecom revenues are flat. Proposals:
  • Make the USF funding sustainable
    • control costs: capping High Cost Areas Program (I'm going to have to look this up later)
    • expand contribution pool. Ouch - he's talking about adding fees to VoIP calls and all broadband traffic. That's not going to be popular.
  • Improve effectiveness
    • Cross-promoting Lifeline and Linkup (again, to look up later)
    • Consumer protection against unpredictable phone bills
Long term proposals:
  • Emphasize value creation over affordability. I don't understand what this does for universal service.
  • Move from uniform service to consumer choice
  • Foster innovation in service
  • Ensure continuance of support for the disenfranchised
I really don't see how this pro-consumer framework gets us to Universal Service. I'm not saying I disagree, but I don't think Krishna made the case. It might have just been a case of the attack of the Powerpoint presentation - bullet points over coherent argumentation. It happens.

Marvin Ammori, Free Press/University of Nebraska on broadband adoption. "We need to move forward with the idea the competition does work."
  • Need info on our markets
  • Need to understand other regimes abroad
  • Need a broad commitment to competition
  • Possibly include some structural separation to create more competitive markets
  • Net Neutrality

NCMR08 3: FACT, continued

Kathryn Montgomery, American University, will discuss children's issues. Kathryn works closely with the Jeff Chester at the Center for Digital Democracy. She highlights that both the Executive transitions and the digital transitions work together to open opportunities for positive change.

Major points
  • The new digital marketing infrastructure is taking shape. Still, it's fluid, and there are opportunities for intervention. Marketers are looking at the digital media culture as an ecosystem that develops across platforms, creating "brand-saturated environments." They are leveraging social networks and encouraging young people to actively market to their peers through these ne
  • Intervention opportunities
    • Food marketing - most of the debate has been around TV advertising, but it's time to look at digital marketing. Kathryn is working on the FTC on this.
    • Childrens' privacy online: IPR, US PIRG, CDD and others are also pressing the FTC on this.
Why is the FTC the regulatory body to pressure on children's issues? I guess its better to work within the trade framework than the speech framework to protect kids.

Rob Frieden, Penn State, on wireless policy. Frustrations:
  • Policy favors concentration in control for carriers. Verizon announced intentions to acquire Alltel. "The FCC never saw a merger it didn't want to approve."
  • 40 years ago, the FCC said consumers can own our own phones, despite the Big Bell's prophesies of doom. Carterphone for wireless! Wonky radicals, unite!

NCMR08 2: FACT

First off is Richard Taylor, Penn State, who wrote on the transition of cable and other platforms to the broadband network. "Everybody gets fast Internet - that's where we'd like to end up."

Radi0ctive Gavin just sat down next to me, so I missed the denser points Richard made, but on PEG: channel slamming, loss of close captioning, Richard has worked out a long list of public service, continuity, do no harm policies for PEG.

I can see now that I wish they had produced a 3-5 pager collection of abstracts for each paper in progress, because these folks are going to have to present with speed and fury, and it's going to be difficult to absorb, analyze, blog, and/or respond to any of it.

Philip Napoli, Fordham, is covering media ownership. Guiding principles:
  • Assessment of the media system not in relation to the past, but in relation to its contemporary potential
  • The media ownership policy process should be as values-drive as it is an empirical process, with a focus on "First Amendment, democratic theory principles"
  • The goal should be anti-protectionist for incumbent (I love this point)
  • Number of channels is irrelevant. The focus should be on the distribution of resources for the production of content. Philip says this is a point the Mark Cooper has been making for some time. It's a well articulated response to the cant that says "but there are so many choices." We'll have to work on the language a little for mobilization purposes, but that's ok.
  • The burden of proof should be equally distributed between the assessment of benefits and harms.
  • Demands for rigorous data analysis must be accompanied and supported by rigorous data collection
Next Up, Len Baynes of St. John's University on the problems in media for minorities. Lack of coverage (Katrina and aftermath), lack of representation (central roles), Imus-level hate speech are the major.

On media ownership: it's clear that minority ownership has dropped. Recommendations:
  • It's a little late for the FCC to just now be rolling out non-discrimination policies.
  • Remedy the structural discrimination in access to capital, advertising. We can use race-based criteria to remedy these.
  • Tax certificate program "was the most effective program the FCC had to" increase minority ownership before Congress killed it off. There are bills in Congress by Rush and Rangel that Len supports.
  • Amend the indecency statute so that "racially abusive language would come within the purview of the statute."

NCMR08 1: Academic Symposium

NCMR08 is up and running, and I am at the academic symposium part of the conference today.

The first panel, a discussion with the Future of American Communications Working Group (FACT), is the main reason I chose this pre-conference from the dense menu of advertised pre-conferences and other meetings. FACT is a project supported by the Media and Democracy Fund that is pulling together some top brains to present a "new vision for communication policy in America for the 21st century for the new administration that will be entering the White House in January" (Amit Schejter, Director).

Depending on how this project works out, the groups I work from will likely be pulling heavily from this project, and this is the first unveiling of the direction the project is taking.