The family that surfs together stays together? We’ll see.

Hmmm… Another of those ‘digital lifestyle’ pieces from the New York Times

Karl and Dorsey Gude of East Lansing, Mich., can remember simpler mornings, not too long ago. They sat together and chatted as they ate breakfast. They read the newspaper and competed only with the television for the attention of their two teenage sons.

That was so last century. Today, Mr. Gude wakes at around 6 a.m. to check his work e-mail and his Facebook and Twitter accounts. The two boys, Cole and Erik, start each morning with text messages, video games and Facebook.

The new routine quickly became a source of conflict in the family, with Ms. Gude complaining that technology was eating into family time. But ultimately even she partially succumbed, cracking open her laptop after breakfast.

“Things that I thought were unacceptable a few years ago are now commonplace in my house,” she said, “like all four of us starting the day on four computers in four separate rooms.”

Narrate Your Work

For as long as I’ve been blogging, Dave Winer has been one of the most interesting people around. (It was his UserLand software that I used when I decided that my blog should go public.) He’s thoughtful, perceptive, opinionated and very bright. This post about what he calls ‘narrating your work’ is a typical example. Excerpt:

I wouldn’t waste your time with all this theory unless I could show you how all this fits in with Rebooted News and the News System of the Future. Here’s a recital of what happened.

1. As you may know, at roughly noon Eastern time yesterday a plane crashed into a helicopter over the Hudson River in NY, killing all nine people aboard both.

2. I was away from my computer when it happened, didn’t check in until about an hour later, and on Twitter there was a mess of conflicting stories, and lots of individuals “breaking” the news even though it happened over an hour ago.

3. I clicked on the page of NYT editorial people on Twitter that I keep and I saw something very different, and this is the point of this story. I saw a news organization at work. Careful to say what they do and don’t know. Informing each other on experience with similar stories in the past. Whether they were all reading all of the others’ posts, I don’t know. They were reading and passing on reports from other Twitter users, even those that didn’t work at the Times. They were coordinating the work of a larger community than just people who work at the Times.

4. I took a snapshot of the page at that time so we could all look at this.

Now why do I think this is so important? Because it’s a big part of the future Rebooted News system, imho. Today’s reporters don’t think the public wants to see inside their process, but they are wrong about that…

Worth reading in full.

Hooray! A big media boss who understands (and believes in) the link economy

Great blog post by Chris Ahearn, President, Media at Thomson Reuters.

To start, yes the global economy is fairly grim and the cyclical aspects of our business are biting extremely hard in the face of the structural changes. But the Internet isn’t killing the news business any more than TV killed radio or radio killed the newspaper. Incumbent business leaders in news haven’t been keeping up. Many leaders continue to help push the business into the ditch by wasting “resources” (management speak for talented people) on recycling commodity news. Reader habits are changing and vertically curated views need to be meshed with horizontal read-around ones.

Blaming the new leaders or aggregators for disrupting the business of the old leaders, or saber-rattling and threatening to sue are not business strategies – they are personal therapy sessions. Go ask a music executive how well it works.

A better approach is to have a general agreement among community members to treat others’ content, business and ideas with the same respect you would want them to treat yours…

Spot on.It’s funny to see how companies that were powerful in the old information ecology think that they have an automatic right to be powerful in the new — without changing their mindsets or business models.

Why TV Networks Should Support Net Neutrality

Nice tongue-in-cheek post by Mark Cuban.

If you run a TV network, broadcast or cable, you should be spending a lot of money to support Net Neutrality. You should have every lobbyist you own getting on the Net Neutrality train. Why ? Because in a net neutrality environment no bits get priority over any other bits. All bits are equal. In such an environment, all bits content with each other to ride the net.

When that happens, bits collide. When bits collide they slow down. Sometimes they dont reach their destination and need to be retransmitted. Often they dont make it at all.

When video bits dont arrive to their destination in a timely manner, internet video consumers get an experience that is worse than what traditional tv distribution options .

That is good for traditional TV.

He’s right. But will they be smart enough to get it?

Digital residents vs digital tourists

My esteemed colleague Doug Clow has just posted a very thoughtful blog post about the glib terminology we use to describe different degrees of familiarity with technology.

I think we should stop talking about “digital natives” and “digital immigrants” altogether. It’s unhelpful and unclear. A better distinction might be between “digital residents” and “digital tourists”.

I’ve never liked the terms “digital native” and “digital immigrant”, as introduced/popularised by Prensky, and the “born digital” idea as applied to people (rather than, say, media artefacts) is profoundly problematic. I’m not the first or only person to raise this – lots of people have criticised it. (And with very flaky Internet access at the moment, I can’t link to or cite to them … which is a bit annoying but saves me the bother – good job this isn’t a proper academic paper.)

He cites four reasons for disliking the ‘native/immigrant’ dichotomy:

1. Moral issues in “appropriating language about indigenous people and human migration”.
2. The fact that the categories are not fixed in generational terms: “as is widely attested, there are plenty of retired-age people who have great facility with digital technologies, and spent large amounts of time online, and plenty of teenagers who struggle with them and find them overwhelming and alienating”.
3. The fact that the ‘native/immigrant’ terminology “attributes inherent, unchangability to one’s approach and use of technology. One cannot aspire or attempt to become a digital native: one either is or one isn’t. There are plenty of people who come to digital fluency at a later stage in life than infancy.”
4. It sets up “an insurmountable barrier of incomprehension between teachers (by definition digital immigrants) and learners (by definition digital natives)”.

I’m with him on #2 through #4. #1 seems a bit, well, wet somehow.

Doug suggests that we think in terms of ‘digital residents’ and ‘digital tourists’. I think that’s much more insightful and productive. In fact, having just come back from Provence, a part of the world I love but in which I never participate fully because of my limited linguistic and cultural knowledge, I can see exactly why some people feel uncertain and unsure of themselves in cyberspace. They’re tourists in that space, whereas I’m a resident.

LATER: A comment on Doug’s post points out that the same distinction was made by Dave White on the Oxford Online Education Blog about a year ago.

Politico and the news cycle

There’s a good piece by Michael Wolff about Politico.com in the August issue of Vanity Fair. I was struck by this passage.

CNN changed the nature of politics and political reporting by compressing the time it took for something to happen, for it to become widely known, and for newsmakers and the public to react to it (i.e., the news cycle) to half a day—whereas the newspaper news cycle, from next-day publication to day-after reaction, was 48 hours, and network television’s news cycle, from one day’s evening news to the next day’s evening news, was 24 hours. Politico brings the news cycle down to about 15 or 20 minutes.

Sony getting smart? Surely not.

At one level, this is a charmingly silly video which makes use of a copyrighted song, owned by Sony. Until now it would have been subjected to a takedown notice. But notice the “Buy song” button. Apparently it has propelled the track into the charts again. Could this be an indication that Sony has finally begin to understand the value of surfing a wave rather than doing its own celebrated imitation of King Canute?

LATER: Neil MacNeil sent me a link to this post, which details the beneficial impact of Sony’s decision.

ITV: a case study in intellectual and moral bankruptcy

I could never understand why ITV bought Friends Reunited, never mind why it paid £175 million for it. At the time I published a blog post saying:

Television people are constitutionally incapable of dealing with the web because they have been socially and professionally conditioned in the world of ‘push’ media with its attendant control freakery and inbuilt assumptions about the passivity and stupidity of audiences. Very little of their experience or skills are useful in a ‘pull’ medium like the web, where the consumer is active, fickle and informed, and history to date suggests that if they are put in charge of internet operations they screw up.

That particular idiocy was committed by Charles Allen, the Granada CEO who presided over the network’s implosion. But eventually Allen departed and was replaced by Michael Grade in the hope that he would prove to be the CEO who would save ITV from the knacker’s yard. I’ve known and admired Grade from the time when I was the Observer‘s TV Critic, but it was obvious that he was the wrong guy for the Internet era. He was a genius in the old push-media world: a brilliant scheduler and commissioner in a time when broadcast TV was the dominant medium. (He commissioned The Singing Detective, for example, when he ran BBC1.) But he’s an old-world popular entertainment impresario and has never really ‘got’ the Net. The Board of ITV was stuffed with guys who didn’t understand the new ecosystem either, so of course they thought he would be just the ticket.

A few weeks before his ignominious departure was announced, I was a guest at a posh dinner in Claridges at which many of the other diners were the extinct volcanoes of the old push-media world. I sat next to a member of the ITV Board, for example, who stoutly maintained that Grade had been a brilliant appointment. As if on cue, Michael came over to us and in his best confidential-male-bonding-back-clapping style told us the latest score in a big premiership match then being played. It was touching in its olde-worlde, locker-room charm.

Immediately across from us sat Charles Allen, the guy who bought Friends Reunited: he too seemed similarly unaware of the extent of his misjudgement. And I remember thinking at the time that people like him (and Tony Blair) will die before they change their minds and admit the errors that will forever define their careers. And in a way that’s understandable: after all, how do you maintain your self-esteem if you have to admit to a colossal blunder? Better to die in denial than to live in shame.

All of which was brought to mind by a terrific piece by Carole Cadwalladr in today’s Observer. She begins with the original Friends Reunited purchase:

We’ve all made shopping mistakes, those never-to-be-worn impulse purchases left mouldering in a plastic bag at the bottom of the wardrobe, but in ITV’s case, it would have to be a pretty big bag, large enough to hold a £175m website and not the sort of thing M&S will give you a credit note for.

Four years ago, it bought Friends Reunited, which was, even then, the internet’s version of the poncho, briefly fashionable, already hopelessly dated, paying £175m or, as it turns out, around £160m too much. And, last week, it was doing the corporate equivalent of sticking it on eBay, crossing its hot little corporate fingers and hoping for a buyer.

It’s almost enough to make you feel sorry for it. And yet not. Because there’s a nasty, invidious connection that links the blowing of £175m and the picture of Rebecca Langley in the papers last week, red, swollen, battered; another dark ITV executive secret.

The nasty secret is ITV’s reliance on one of the most morally-repugnant programmes I’ve ever seen on British TV — the Jeremy Kyle show. The peg for Cadwalladr’s piece is a court case which concluded last week in which a man was convicted of a violent assault on his girlfriend — with whom he had appeared on the Kyle show:

Rebecca Langley was a guest on The Jeremy Kyle Show and last week a judge found her boyfriend, Jamie Juste, guilty of grievous bodily harm and jailed him for two years. Sentencing him, Judge Sean Enright said the show contained “plainly an element of cruelty and exploitation”.

Twenty-three-years-old and 4ft 10in tall, Langley was left with a shattered eye socket and cheekbone and bite marks. The attack happened after the couple watched their appearance on The Jeremy Kyle Show with the judge concluding it had “fed his insecurities.

It turns out that this is almost par for the course.

In 2007, Judge Alan Berg, presiding over a case in which one guest on the show butted another, said that he believed its sole purpose was “to effect a morbid and depressing display of dysfunctional people whose lives are in turmoil”. Then in February last year, one Craig Platt found out via a DNA test on the show that he wasn’t the father of his baby, live on the show. A week later, he pointed a loaded air rifle at his wife’s head.

There is no shock. ITV knows exactly what it is doing. A year ago, I watched a recording of the show and discovered, by chance, that an 18-year-old man who was shown being abused by his drunken neighbours in a pub car park in Hemel Hempstead had bipolar disorder and paranoid schizophrenia.

At the time, I thought, naively, that that would be that: you couldn’t knowingly abuse mentally ill people for the sake of entertainment and get away with it. But it turns out you can.

So, Cadwalladr concludes:

The Jeremy Kyle Show is the polar opposite of a social network. It’s not about meeting “new people” or sharing knowledge or “staying in touch”, as the Friends Reunited website claims, or as the internet can be at its best. It’s a divide-and-rule strategy dreamed up by an authoritarian overclass who create the conditions to humiliate the very poorest, weakest and least able members of society for one purpose alone: to accrue wealth for themselves. Better viewing figures mean larger audiences mean more advertising mean higher bonuses.

This is a nasty, brutal, cynical show, not in terms of the guests it attracts, but in the television executives who commission it, who preside over it, who direct their spokesmen to defend its exploitation of the mentally ill and its humiliation of the weak and unfortunate; a plastic bag of despair at the bottom of ITV’s wardrobe.

Spot on.

Onwards and downwards?

The report of Alan Milburn’s inquiry into social mobility in contemporary Britain is deeply depressing. It charts the extent to which this is an unequal society. As Ian Jack observes.:

Many of its statistics are shocking. Only 7% of the population attended private schools, but 75% of judges, 70% of finance directors, and one in every three MPs went to one. And unto those that hath, etc: among nine out of 12 professions examined, particularly medicine and the law, the proportion of entrants coming from well-off families has been increasing; doctors born in 1970, for example, typically grew up in families with an income nearly two thirds higher than the average. Connection matters. ‘Soft skills’ in interviews matter: how to be confident, how to please. Unpaid internships and work experience schemes, particularly in glamorous professions such as the media, tend to be monopolies of the well-connected. Milburn describes it as “the closed shop society”, with a geographic bias towards London and the south-east.

Jack is as astonished as I am by one finding of the report relating to the mainstream media:

Figures 1F and 1G in the report. The first shows that more than half of “top journalists” were privately educated. The second shows how this proportion has actually increased since the 1980s – alone among eight professional categories, including barristers, judges and vice-chancellors.

As far as this phenomenon is concerned, the decline of the print media looks like a consummation devoutly to be wished. Once the stranglehold of the print and journalistic unions was broken by Murdoch & Co, the closed world of British national newspapers was transformed into an environment tailor-made for shoehorning well-connected Oxbridge kids into cushy roles. With a bit of luck this agreeable system of outdoor relief will wither on the vine: these brats won’t find the online world quite so accommodating to folks whose main qualification is an assumption of entitlement and superiority.

But the wider problem laid bare with scarifying clarity by the Milburn report remains. And nobody — and this includes Milburn — has any real idea what to do about it.

Is Crowdfunding the Future of Journalism?

Useful survey of different ways of searching for a sustainable business model.

Crowdfunding, or getting many people to donate small amounts of cash to fund a project, startup, or service, is nothing new. Think public radio or television pledge drives. Think political campaigns. Think tip jar. Now, as the media landscape changes and traditional revenue sources are beginning to disappear, some forward-thinking journalists and entrepreneurs are starting to apply the crowdfunding concept to the news. A new crop of sites are combining crowdfunding with volunteer and professional contributions in order to source news that people want to read.

There are two issues with crowdfunded sites that also have volunteer journalists, however: who’s going to pay for it and who’s going to write it. These sites are experimenting with ways of answering these questions….