2010.02.16

Media relevance at the crossroads

So much has changed in the media landscape over the last few years, particularly the rise of digital and the fall of traditional. I’ve spoken with many people in print and broadcast media about the ways digital has become an integral part of their job — for better and for worse — and I’ve been actively using digital technologies for communication, engagement and community building.

The fascinating thing is that the traditional and digital media camps seem to be talking about a similar struggle using different language, from different stages of maturity.

Relevance

Traditional media is struggling to maintain relevance while the world around it is swirling with information, insight and one of the most important trifectas of being able to report news when it matters: location, location, location. More is being demanded of journalists with diminishing systems of support to deliver what the public wants when the public wants it. I’ve met columnists that are expected to cover the stories of interest as well as shoot and publish video on the web and write a blog post that augments and drives traffic to — not competes with — their column.

Digital media is struggling to establish relevance while the world around it watches the signal-to-noise ratio of the flood of information with a critical and suspicious eye. There are no gatekeepers and with that no quality control which both helps and hinders the trustworthiness of the information for everyone except those that are in the community. There is no specific requirement for balanced reporting except the fear of reprisal.

Here’s a fantastic opportunity for traditional and digital folks to get together and learn from each other. The traditional folks can get some guidance on the tools, culture and multidiscipline approach and the digital folks can get some guidance on sources, responsible communication and picking the relevant parts of a story. While this is important at the ground level, it’s equally important for editors, publishers and management to get in on the discussion though I expect they’re generally dismissive/suspicious of the amateur or too absorbed in financial strains and broken business models to take the time out for this kind of discussion. Of course, I might be completely wrong and they completely open to the idea.

Seems like it might be time to bring these two folks to the table. I have some thoughts on how I’d like to help make this happen. If you’re interested, drop me a line.

2009.12.30

Communication anthropology: evaluating five types of commenters

There’s no denying that mainstream media still carries a lot of weight on issues. This is particularly obvious on the web sites of media organizations that have embraced social media. For those of us who work in public affairs, these sites provide invaluable insight into public opinion and communication anthropology.

My colleagues and I have been immersed in reading hundreds of comments left by Canadians on media sites that covered an issue that affects some of our clients.  We built a matrix to evaluate all of the comments and discovered that the public response to and understanding of the issue was based on the coverage of each media organization. Suddenly, new stakeholders materialized and the public revealed their opinion about them.

Small and medium sized organizations should take note — when mainstream media incorporated comments on their web sites, they gave you the gift of free public opinion polling.

The excercise has led me to categorize commenters into five main categories and reinforced how much business intelligence any organization can gain from paying attention to digital conversation. That is, if you seek first to understand (and believe me, reading hundreds of comments is an important and valuable commitment) you can discover what the issue really is and who you should be reaching out to before you figure out what should be said.

Based on my share of the comments, I classified commenters into five categories:

INVOLVED – these are the people that are close to or very concerned about the issue. They know the stakeholders, they have intimate knowledge of the issue, and can analyze the different directions and effects of the issue on the fly. Involved commenters help keep the conversation relevant no matter their stance on the issue.

INFORMED – these are the people that have taken the time to learn more about the issue and its key players. They tend to know the history and appreciate the impacts. Informed commenters generally have a personal interest in the issue. They contribute new ideas to the conversation and help others understand by taking the time to offer valuable responses.

MISINFORMED – these are the people who have skimmed the article, may have misunderstood the information they received and have collected or were fed inaccurate information from other sources. This is the first level of commenter that lets their opinions cloud the issue by letting their opinions fill in the holes of their understanding. Misinformed commenters aren’t necessarily malicious.

UNINFORMED – this is where the participants in the conversation transition from being people to being commenters. The uninformed choose to let their opinion validate their broken logic. They aren’t interested in the back story and don’t know who the stakeholders are. In most cases, they’ve picked up on a single point of the article or taken a single piece of information out of context. Uninformed commenters like to pontificate and are happiest when they deconstruct what other people are saying, sometimes peppering their comments with personal attacks.

ANGRY – known for years as “flamers”, this is the angry mob of people who like to berate others no matter what the discussion is about. They’ve never heard of the issue and probably won’t come back to it. They spray their anger and leave. The angry use emotional attacks and have no interest in logic.

I decided to quantify five qualities of commenters based on several criteria with ratings of 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). I used 0 to indicate none.

Now it becomes easier to figure out who to engage with, how and when.

2009.12.23

Libel protections will fast-track media reporting

In follow-up to my post, yesterday, about the Supreme Court of Canada “responsible communication” ruling that establishes libel protections for journalists and bloggers, I’d like to add that this will likely reduce time-to-publish for media organizations that have typically relied on clearance from their legal departments before going public with public interest and investigative reports.

Michael Geist has published more details about the defence on his blog and included his thoughts about this decision being a significant victory for freedom of expression. In his post he includes the following from the ruling:

…the traditional media are rapidly being complemented by new ways of communicating on matters of public interest, many of them online, which do not involve journalists. These new disseminators of news and information should, absent good reasons for exclusion, be subject to the same laws as established media outlets.

© 2005 - 2010 Mark Blevis. Design by SnowyDay