I like that in the announcement of Janet Robinson stepping down as CEO of the NYT that the search for her replacement will look both internally and externally. If they are smart – they will find an external person who comes from a technology background (or an internal person like +Aron Pilhofer).

If technology companies are becoming media companies
then media companies must become technology companies.

from David Cohn @ Google+ https://plus.google.com/109410049853740963142/posts/NwZrdgLo7hM

(What I was hoping would appear)

Headline: If this works – it will be a Google+ public update and automatically create my December Contribution to the Carnival of Journalism on my personal blog.

BODY: For those that don’t know – the Carnival of Journalism is something I re-started in January (coming up on a year!) where a bunch of journalism-bloggers get together and write about the same topic once a month. The question is posed by the host – who rotates.

This month’s host is the Gaurdian’s developer blog and they ask:

“If you are a journalist, what would be the best present from programmers and developers that Santa Claus could leave under your Christmas tree?And, correspondingly, if you are a programmer or developer, what would be the best present from journalism that Father Christmas could deliver down your chimney?”

I go through various phases with my personal blog. When I first started in 2005 it was called “Adventures in Freelancing” and it was about just that – the various stories I was working on our published or other stories I was reading and found interesting.

Since Spot.Us started my blogging has laxed (at best). I use it for occasional big thoughts or announcements. Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, Google+, etc take up a much larger space of my “online productivity” and to be honest – I wish there were ways to streamline my efforts.

Of course there is IFTT.com – which is what I’m using to repost this Google+ update to my personal blog. And from my blog it will then automatically be Tweeted. So that’s a start.

But there are things lost in the translation from Google+ to my personal blog and back out to Twitter. (SEE UPDATE ABOVE THIS IS FAR FROM PERFECT OR STREAMLINED – I HAD TO COME BACK AND EDIT IN THE WYSWIG EDITOR TO ADD A LINK, COPY PASTE THE BODY, ETC).

In a strange way I still think what I’m looking for was FriendFeed. What a brilliant site that was. Too bad they were bought (talent-scouted) by Facebook.

So if I had to answer the question succinctly: I want a frictionless blogging platform. Not Tumblr or Posterous (although they’ve done an awesome job). I think there is a way to make something even simpler. A platform where I can save something to Delicious and create the formatting once so that from hence-forth all Delicious links will be posted on my blog the way I want (ITTF does an okay job – but not perfect). A platform where I can post something on Google+ and format it once and forever my Google+ public posts will appear on my blog the way I want (what you are seeing on my blog is probably not perfect and can only contain one URL .

That’s my holiday gift ask.

This was one of the more interesting sessions at NewsFoo. It has crazy implications. It’s not a question of “if” but “when” this begins to “take off” (pun intended). At the same time – what are the implications for privacy/safety.

Somehow even more important than Clay’s thoughts is Yelvington’s point: It’s not up for debate if this is happening or not. It is.

Whether or not it’s these debaters – I have a feeling this debate will not end.

At Block by Block Jay reminded me of this. We were catching up and he started to discuss the 2012 election and he paused, as if to apologize, “I know you hate discussing politics.”

I admire that Jay remembered this about me. Or maybe it caught his ear as strange back when I said it. Either way, my view has changed drastically.  How did I go from contempt about passing conversations of politics with friends to dedicating a year to watching Glenn Beck every day? That’s what this post is about.

You may laugh at how I got turned on to politics – and that might even be the point.

I credit The Daily Show.

It goes without saying that I’m a big fan. In fact, I watched The Daily Show before Jon Stewart was the host (Craig Kilborn) and it had a more Onion-esque quality to it.

But what exactly is it that The Daily Show opened my eyes to? In short: The horse race coverage of….. everything. But let’s stick with politics for the moment.

The way broadcast television covers politics is absurd. I grew up with it. It’s all I knew. The main reason to watch news about politics was to find out who was winning, who was losing and who made a ‘gaffe’ which would effect their winning/losing status. That was it.

The Daily Show is not political satire. It’s media satire. This is why the show has remained relevant beyond the Bush administration. They never made their mark making fun of politics, who was winning/losing. Their insight was in how the media portrays our world. There is an entire generation out there who never liked the Katie Couric, Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite news personality. We’re spoon fed Cross Fire, The No Spin Zone and other absurd shows and made to believe that this is the way adults have to engage and converse with the world. Somehow I always felt like it was silly. Why would I want to discuss politics if the only frame of reference I have were these people.

That’s the beauty of The Daily Show. It showed me, and countless others, something we all internally felt. That this window through which we were observing the world was warped and that we had a better sense intuitively of how to engage than they did.

Of course, none of this is news. There has been far better analysis of The Daily Show than this post. But for what it’s worth – here’s my testament.

My biggest criticism is actually just how it focuses on broadcast news. You can tell Jon Stewart has a distaste for social media and the power of the Internet. Then again, this is a new medium, the underdog medium. It is far less in need of satire and perhaps there will be a time when television media has faded and there won’t be a need for The Daily Show. Until then – I’m glad there is a voice out there reminding us that what we see on television is entertainment first, informative second.

Then seemingly out of nowhere the CEO of Yahoo is kicked out and a “For Sale” sign is put up on their front yard.

Both Yahoo! and AOL were technology giants that are moving to become media entities. AOL doesn’t hide it with the HUGE investment in Patch and acquiring HuffingtonPost. Yahoo perhaps made the shift too coy and thus might have to start breaking apart. Yahoo hasn’t made the drastic switch of resources that AOL has and the potential sale might be a direct reflection of poor internal investments. Now AOL’s big bet might not win – but at least it was a conscious bet that the company made to become a content creator of massive proportions. I think Yahoo always rested its laurels on being a search company with a few social properties here and there (they never utilized Delicious or Flickr that well).

And thus the lesson below…..

Technology companies must understand that they are also media companies.

Media companies must understand that they are also technology companies.

Why?

Because the two are married.

Let’s take a step back to get here.

1. All media is social

The intent of media is to communicate something to people. Skirting the “if a tree falls in a forest” question – I’d say that all media is social.

2. Then what the hell is social media?

What we call “social media” is a misnomer given #1 above. A more proper understanding of it might be “minute media” or media about minutia (then again, ‘minutia’ is all about perspective; ‘dog bites man’ is big news to the man’s family). When blogs bursted on the scene in the early 2000′s we saw some of this minute media. It turns out that was just a crack in the damn. The real wave of minute media came around life-casting ie: Twitter, Facebook updates, etc. But this is all media.

3. Minute media is made possible by technology.

See: the Internet, the falling cost of publishing, etc.

4. If technology powers this rapidly evolving media (it defines the medium) then technology companies are media companies. That might not mean “journalism” companies – but media companies nonetheless.

Netflix, Hulu, Facebook, Twitter and more are all technology companies that make their money because of the media they produce or enable.

Even Apple is a media company to some degree. They build hardware with the intent of syncing it to their very massive and user-friendly media store iTunes.

Some of this is not news for folks (Lisa Williams may be the first person I heard to clearly state this). When I look at AOL’s and Yahoo’s moves it strikes me as apparent and something to take pause to notice. AOL, while often berated for patch, should be applauded because while most technology companies that move into media deal with ‘content’ AOL made a specific goal to do community journalism.

So where does this leave media companies?

They must move to become more like technology companies. They must learn to either create their own platforms for minute media or truly adopt/adapt to other platforms. They must find and define the platforms that enable the type of media they want to support. This, I believe, starts where Jeff Jarvis’ post about platforms being journalism leaves off. It’s not that platforms are journalism – it’s that technology enables media and journalism is a type of media that requires a type of platform. Journalists love to complain about Demand Media, for example, but it’s a beautiful case where a media company has built a technology platform to support the type of media they want to make. I agree, it’s not journalism – but then journalists must BUILD the platform that enables their type of media or pray somebody else does. Newspapers should define that technology platform instead of waiting for somebody else to build it for them (charging them an arm and a leg in the process).

I’m a little under the weather so I’m not even going to give this a second read/edit. But hey, this is my semi-minute media space. It’ll hopefully be interesting to somebody.

I’ve always been a big fan of failure. I think journalism should hold a “fail camp” (inspired by Ethan Zuckerman). When I re-started the blog carnival I dedicated a month towards failure. I’m working on a new project (details to come soon, promise) and I think/hope failure will be a big part of it.

We talk a lot about barriers to success. But we also say that we can only succeed on the shoulders of our many failures. Therefore I’d like to point out what I think are the barriers to failure (and therefore also to success). If we don’t fail early and fail often we won’t push forward. So below are some barriers to failure. Luckily most of these are easily overcome if you can identify them.

1. It’s not a problem until it’s a problem.

The “What If’s” are a terrible thing. It assumes that every bad scenario you can think of needs to be handled right away before you even start. This is the opposite of the sage philosophy from “Getting Real”: It’s not a problem until it’s a problem. I put this barrier first because it’s a particularly poignant problem in the journalism community. We are natural skeptics. Our instinct is to think about who might be secretly benefiting, who is maliciously stealing public money what ‘problem’ is there underneath the surface. That’s great in reporting but the WRONG attitude to starting something new. The “What If’s” are unproductive. Deal with “this is” when it happens. I am very familiar with “what ifs” because I get them every time I explain Spot.Us to a journalist that has never heard of the concept.

What if stories get influenced by a donor?

• Concerned journalist: What if a neo-Nazi wants to fund a story? OH MY GOD David – HOW COULD YOU DO THIS TO JOURNALISM?
• Answer: Well, we limit how much a person can donate, so you need a group of people.
• Concerned journalist: Well, what if a GROUP of neo-Nazis want to fund a story?
• Answer: umm… well, you need a reporter who puts their professional reputation on the line doing that story.
• Concerned journalist: Well, what if the reporter is a Nazi? Jesus David, didn’t you think about that!
• Answer if I have energy: If there is a group of neo-Nazis and a reporter, they don’t need my site to do the story they want to do.
• Answer to stop the obvious ‘what if‘ cycle of the conversation: You’re right. I should shut down the site before that happens.

Bottom line: If the reason you aren’t doing something starts with “what if” – it’s a bad reason not to move forward and perhaps fail. It’s not a problem until it’s a problem.

2. Tradition!!!! (sung loudly while swinging your hands in the air)

Traditions are great. But if presented with a new way to do something which breaks tradition – you should take it. Traditions are only as strong as their tests. If you never test a tradition, it’s weak, fragile and hasn’t evolved. If you test the tradition against a new method and the new method fails, score for tradition (waves hands, sings loudly), but if not – you must learn to adapt. The old tradition of war was that it was fought in an open field in straight lines of volleyed musket fire wearing bright uniforms that looked like targets. That “tradition” didn’t stand the test of time for a reason. Do you really want to defend the online version of volley-musket fire because it’s “tradition.”

3. Letting the perfect be an enemy of the good.

Dreams of perfection should not stall the launch of something good. If it were perfect you wouldn’t fail early or often. You wouldn’t fail at all. But one could also argue if you were aiming for perfection, you’d end up attempting nothing. At a certain point you have to accept what is and isn’t possible in a reasonable timeline and aim for what is reasonable. The good news is that you don’t have to END there. You are just starting there. In some respects I think that’s the reason so many folks let perfection become the enemy of the good. They are concerned that they’ll never progress after an initial effort. Hence, we won’t start unless we know we can get all the way. This is a great way to invest months into a project that could fall flat its face. Remember: It’s cheaper and easier to try something than it is to debate about whether or not to try something.

4. Fear… of failure. 

It’s a perfectly natural fear. Nobody wants to have their ego bruised. Luckily we are living in a time where the web is figuring itself out. There is a way to fail gracefully, to fail towards success. It’s not even altruistic, if you fail you’ll learn more and will be more likely to succeed in a future endeavor. You can fail selfishly and get kudos along the way. Remember kids, only you can defeat fear of failure.

5. Institutional momentum

This is a bit different from “tradition” above (#2). In this case it isn’t for lack of will that new things are tried and potentially failed. In this instance it’s for lack of an institutional way. In other words – there are no resources (time, money, knowledge), to get started on a project even though everyone earnestly wants to try it. The good news, any institution that has this problem of existing momentum also has some resource,s it’s just a matter of allocation. This is the classic newspaper problem. Why don’t news organizations stop the presses and invest in digital? Because print is still where they make their money. You can’t cut off the head to save the body.

But here’s the truth. If there is a will, there is a way. Fact is, if you accept that perfection is not the enemy of the good and that you don’t need to accommodate every “what if” scenario, you can create a streamlined alpha of many projects. You can do this independent of the institution. And institutions need to learn to let go, allow some 20% time, skunkworks or whatever you want to call it. You just need a wee-little bit of space. The smudgiest of resources to begin. From there – you’ll get a better sense of whether or not something is worth more resources.

6. Resources to get started

There is good, fast and cheap. You get to pick two.  Keep your scope small and remain flexible. Google does have a lot of resources and yet innovation happens outside of their Google-plex. It’s possible. You just have to be ready to make sacrifices. The good news is that you can always come back to fix things. Later will always happen – now is fleeting. Take advantage of now so that in the future, you can continue to push forward.

7. Leadership vacuum

If you don’t have good leadership you won’t launch new products. Leadership needs to be clear, so that everyone can get in line. Leadership needs to have a vision, to communicate that vision and know how to navigate the above barriers. If not, they themselves are a barrier. In truth, leadership is a post in and of itself, but certainly a leadership vacuum is a great barrier to failure. While that last sentence may seem counter-intuitive (great leadership should lead to success) consider Teddy Roosevelt’s quote: “In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worst thing you can do is nothing.”

Carpe Perscribo (Seize the writing/journalism)

In our ongoing group of surveys on the media supported by the Whitman Institute  we are looking at how media plays a role in our decision making. How we converse with each other, ourselves our national body politic and beyond through the media. You can take the latest Whitman Institute survey on Spot.Us. Not only will you inform our query about breaking news, you’ll earn $5 that can be applied to the news story of your choice. Hooray!

In this survey we asked you if and how the media has had an influence on the world. During the Obama campaign in 2008 there was a lot of discussion that the media played an influential role, swooning over Obama and attacking Sarah Palin. In the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008 others believed the media played an influential role by ignoring tell-tale signs. That somehow the media was asleep at the wheel and this influenced the financial downturn.

Journalists often say that you cannot have a democracy without a healthy and independent media. That at its best good journalism can directly influence policy, voting decisions and more. There is a notion that  journalism should comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. We wonder if this ideal can be in conflict with the traditionally held view that journalism should be objective.

As always – Spot.Us is not, nor do we claim to be, a polling organization. That said, these are real answers from real people from all over the world including Japan and Guatemala. See the first Whitman Institute survey here and the second here.

We did find some of the results very curious and perhaps contradictory. It seems that when talking about ourselves we think the media has some influence. When asked if the media has influenced a voting decision, the answers between 1 (agree very little) and 5 (agree strongly) were spread out. But when asked how much influence the media might have on other’s – we place a little more agency.

We find a similar spread when asking how the media might influence the way one frames or talks about an issue.

Certainly we acknowledge the media plays a role. But it seems somewhat even-handed. Yet when we discuss the influence the media may have had on “the masses” in their voting decisions we see a strong curve that shows a trend towards “strongly agree.”

We actually see similar trending charts around the media’s influence in the lead up to the Iraq war and the national debt ceiling discussion.

It is interesting to note that while the trends are the same, it was the strongest around the influence of the Barack Obama 2008 campaign. The sentiment that the media played a role and influenced people was the strongest around this event and the weakest around the national deb ceiling discussion.

But again, all three charts suggest a similar trend in the way we think the media influences external events, specifically how people see politicians and national affairs. Meanwhile, we believe the media has less influence over our own voting habits.

Sure enough there was one external event where our survey takers thought the media did not play an influential role. It was in the lead up to the housing crisis.

There is no right/wrong when discussing if and how the media should be objective. From past Spot.Us surveys we can see it is a dividing issue. Many would argue that objectivity in journalism is impossible and in full disclosure (ha!) I am one of them. I do not think it is wrong to strive for objectivity, just that it is a fool’s errand in part because one of the goals of journalism is to have impact and influence. Without probing too deep, we asked if these two forces contradicted. Unsurprisingly we found the Spot.Us community to be somewhat divided on the issue. About half do not see a problem. One quarter do see an inherent problem and another quarter are unsure.

Can the media be influential and objective at the same time.

As we finish off most of our surveys we asked an open ended question. This allows us to get some anecdotal responses in addition to our analytical numbers. On par with the Spot.Us community there were more interesting responses than we could display. Below are some of the highlights. The responses below are anonymous and unedited.

“Television media is uniquely influential, and almost always negative in its effect. It lacks context, reporting, and hard-questioning.”

“The media can play an influential role if it wants to. We currently have a polemic media, in many countries not just the US. You could argue that this media landscape leads to heightened tensions between the political parties, that media influences not only the public but the political process too. In terms of the recent debt ceiling “crises” both sides played out their part for their supporters, as usual. In terms of actual events, this only pushes the problem back a bit, it also did nothing to stop the downgrading of the US.”

“Clearly this is a bad influence, on the positive side, the reaction to Katrina, Haiti, to Japan, to international and national events that require the mobilisation of people is to be lauded. I doubt that the media influence happens too often, it certainly is not never. Perhaps we are now more aware of this influence, from politicians down to the public. We also have a public that can self-broadcast so more examples of influence are reported.”

“I’m not sure how “played an influential role” is defined. I certainly pay attention to the media–what’s reported–and consider what the main players (Congress, the President, etc.) are saying and doing. I pay very little attention to the “talking heads” and their interpretation of the issues. I do listen–I’m intellectually curious–but just because some commentator on Fox or MSNBC believes a certain way doesn’t really affect me. Also, many non-media people have a tendency to want to “kill the messenger.” For example, I’m also a Realtor. I’m amazed at how many real estate agents blame the media for the poor real estate market. Yes, the media are reporting on it, and sometimes oversimplify issues. But the fact that people aren’t buying, the fact that housing prices in some areas have declined 30%-50%, the fact that foreclosures and short sales are up sharply–all that has virtually nothing to do with the media. Yet many agents really seem to blame the media for the poor condition of the market.”

“Speaking as a journalist, I don’t believe that the media CAN be objective. Everything from which stories are covered and in what light, to which experts are called in to comment frame the way the public will view an issue and the reasons behind those decisions are almost never objective. I think the best we can hope for is media that is honest and accountable for their coverage but sadly that happens way too little—especially on television.”

“I live in Japan, and I see that many Japanese people are way too easily influenced by the media on everything from what they eat, what they want and and what they think. It’s almost like people have stopped thinking. Many people confuse that information from the media is their own opinion. There are a lot of not very wise talk show hosts and university professors who talk blindly and people believe them. I think it is very scary. Media is man made, and subjectivity of the journalist is never to be avoided. I think we all need to realize that.”

“I don’t think it’s bad that the media is influential, if it is in fact media that you are watching/reading/listening too. If someone listen’s to only Rush Limbaugh or watches Keith Olberman and think that because they are on a news station, that it is news, that’s a problem. Today there are so many different media outlets, it’s important to check out more than one, so that you are sure you’re getting the whole story. I live in Boston where the Globe and Herald cover stories differently. I like to read both, because some details that are in one might not be in the other.”

“The media ALWAYS plays an influential role. People believe what they read and hear. People adopt what they read and hear as their own opinion. Most people prefer to be among the majority rather than the minority, so if the media present one side of an issue as the majority view (whether or not it really is), people adopt that view and it in fact becomes the majority view.”

“I think if you get your information from the media, they in turn play an influential role period. I think that when it is honest, unbiased media, then it is a positive thing. However, media these days are often accurate and unbiased. A lot of people go around quoting incorrect and bias information and it is very harmful!”

“In Guatemala, it is mostly bad. The media is controlled by a few powerful groups, it is only through alternative sources that one can get some balance.”

That disclosure behind us, something a lot of people don’t know about me – I’ve been watching Glenn Beck every day for the last nine months (maybe longer).

I’ve always been open to varying opinions. In fact, I seek them out. This is not me on a journalism high-horse. It’s genuinely who I am. I don’t necessarily like arguing (I’m not a comment troller that goes around picking political fights) but I like to try and understand people and their motivating factors. I think there are two inspirations for this. As a kid I distinctly remember my father would occasionally turn to the the Christian channel and watch televangelists. Part of it was him mocking their style (proselytizing is not part of the Jewish culture and I think many are turned off by it) and part of it, I think, was just to expose himself and me to the fact that other people approach the world with radically different views. The second inspiration has been the idea of a bizarro Dave. I picture somebody my age, similar height, similar loving childhood, intelligent, etc, etc, etc. We are alike in so many ways except I grew up in Los Angeles and he grew up somewhere else. As a result, not only do we have a different view of the world and our Country, but we can’t even start to converse about the differences. There is no similar ground upon which to start. I want to meet bizarro Dave. I want to understand him and perhaps selfishly, I want him to understand me.

So that’s the inspiration behind watching Glenn Beck for the last year. When I confess this to some of my other media-elite, SF, communist bastard friends, they wonder what I’ve gleaned from it all. It’s one thing to watch some of his out-takes or Media Matter clips and judge, but it’s another to immerse yourself in the world of Beck. Some observations and thoughts below.

1. He isn’t dumb and he’s very charismatic.

Glenn Beck is not dumb. In fact, he’s articulate, he thinks on his feet and is very charismatic. To dismiss him as an idiot or to assume people caught under his spell are idiots is a disservice.

2. He can be very convincing.

I’d by lying if I didn’t say that a few times while watching Glenn Beck over the months my heart started to race and I thought it was time to invest in gold and build a panic plan for the oncoming American dollar apocalypse. Luckily, I also watch The Daily Show every day and it would help remind me part of what I’m watching is a show. An entertaining show the same way post-apocalyptic movies can be entertaining. It doesn’t mean I’m about to study Mad Max for advice on how to plan my future.

When people say that he can work up a frenzy and scare people – it’s true. If you let your critical thinking guard down, you’ll be shaking your fist at everyone who “just doesn’t see” what’s happening. In terms of a media diet, if all you watch is Glenn Beck, then you’ll be convinced America is a stone’s throw away from a third world country.

3. He believes it all.

People always ask me if I think Glenn Beck is lying or if he really believes what he’s saying.

Of course nobody can know another persons’ mind, but I think he genuinely believes everything he says. If it turns out the whole thing is an act, then he deserves an Oscar, Academy Award and a Grammy just for good measure.

4. It all make sense if…..

It’s a big if, but here’s what it comes down to: Religion. The “conspiracy theories” all make sense if (and for me it’s not an ‘if’ I accept) you are a fundamentalist Christian.

If you believe, in your heart of hearts (as I think Glenn does) that Jesus is the only path to a noble and saved life, there is a Satan and that earth is a battlefield for the two – then everything that is playing out on Glenn’s show makes perfect sense. More than anything I believe Beck is a televangelist turned political pundit.

In Beck’s worldview there is little room for shades of gray. We live in a world where there is pure good and pure evil. The teachers unions, Marxists/Anarchists, Soros, etc., are manifestations of evil. At best, most liberals (and union members) are sheep being duped.

This “tricked” factor plays very well into Christian folklore. Your average liberal is being tricked just as Eve was by the snake to eat that god-damned apple. Glenn sees himself as somebody trying to warn against the apple.

I think it is this classic Christian narrative that appeals to so many people. Much like Bush, Glenn speaks the language of fundamentalist Christians. Sometimes he does so overtly and other times it’s much more coded. Many (I’d argue most) of the ideological arguments Beck makes boil down to a religious foundation. If you share the same foundation, then it’s not hard to follow his train of thought on most issues.

5. Glenn Beck as manifestation – not cause

With this understanding of Beck, I’ve begun to regard him as more of a symptom or manifestation of a certain worldview – not its cause. He doesn’t cause hysteria, but he explains why a segment of our population feels panicked. Whether it’s the war on Christmas or the war on prayer in schools, Beck is able to hone in on these fears and represent them. Then he extrapolates out further showing the same ideological underpinning that makes one side attack prayer in school (liberal satanists) and the other side want to defend prayers in school (conservative’s saved by Jesus) and connects them to other issues. In the Middle East the communists, anarchists and radical Islam elements (re: heathens) have joined forces to topple the governments and now threaten Israel (fundamentalist Christians LOVE Israel).

The point is: Beck is very good at tapping into natural fears and exploiting them. I don’t think he is the genesis. (get it Gensis!)
Will I keep watching Beck?

Probably not. I became fascinated with him as a commentator and I wanted to give him more credit than just writing him off as a loony. That’s for MSNBC to do

Instead – I wanted to take the time to really uncover just what it is that he represents. What cultural barrier was it that he was taping into. I feel I’ve come to my own understanding. And just in time for him to leave Fox.