We are doomed. http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/26/nobody-gives-a-damn-about-your-klout-score/
The business model is less about your score and more about delivering you to companies to make money. That's fine - I'm a capitalist pig small business guy - but purporting to measure influence when there is little independent research establishing that one can determine influence from social media activity... Doesn't belong in the curriculum.
Ethan Zuckerman talks about this topic from the business angle (reporting on a Clay Shirky essay and presentation). http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2009/09/22/clay-shirky-and-accountability-journalism/
The business model of newspapers (and broadcast news) depended on advertising and paid subscription to fund what they called the "accountability journalism" that is most important to the functioning of society. Absent a means of culling the wheat from the chaff, we starve.
it's true, as #3 says, that the journalistic integrity (despite the efforts of the Poynter Institute and others) has almost disappeared as regards simply fair reporting (let alone objective reporting.) But now we seem willing to turn over the entire enterprise to amateur reporters, trusting average people to act as their own editors, weighing claims from competing sources to distill the truth.
Also, much of the "free" media now is really just stolen from professional content providers without compensation -- if there are no more professional journalists, all information will be subject to the overt biases (disclosed, sometimes not) of individuals. This returns us journalistically, to the turn of the 19th-20th Century. The volume of information alone is so much greater now, how can we make sense of it?
We may indeed rely on our peers (we all tend to associate with those similar to us in outlook, intelligence and education and interest), but what of competitive ideology? The prospect that we don't know enough about something? Where is a source of more objective information?
This leads to all communication being commercial in nature -- overt manipulation with no third party to cast a critical eye on claims.
Surely there are many examples of media bias, but also there are examples of good faith attempts to mediate these biases and discover broader truths. The government, especially, would love the independent professional media to disappear -- who would hold it accountable?
Idealistically yours,
Sean
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Sean Williams.
and...
thanks to @jgombita for pointing me to this story.
Preposterous
We are doomed. http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/26/nobody-gives-a-damn-about-your-klout-score/
The business model is less about your score and more about delivering you to companies to make money. That's fine - I'm a capitalist pig small business guy - but purporting to measure influence when there is little independent research establishing that one can determine influence from social media activity... Doesn't belong in the curriculum.
@commammo -- I also adjunct at Kent State.
But who will pay?.
Ethan Zuckerman talks about this topic from the business angle (reporting on a Clay Shirky essay and presentation). http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2009/09/22/clay-shirky-and-accountability-journalism/
The business model of newspapers (and broadcast news) depended on advertising and paid subscription to fund what they called the "accountability journalism" that is most important to the functioning of society. Absent a means of culling the wheat from the chaff, we starve.
it's true, as #3 says, that the journalistic integrity (despite the efforts of the Poynter Institute and others) has almost disappeared as regards simply fair reporting (let alone objective reporting.) But now we seem willing to turn over the entire enterprise to amateur reporters, trusting average people to act as their own editors, weighing claims from competing sources to distill the truth.
Also, much of the "free" media now is really just stolen from professional content providers without compensation -- if there are no more professional journalists, all information will be subject to the overt biases (disclosed, sometimes not) of individuals. This returns us journalistically, to the turn of the 19th-20th Century. The volume of information alone is so much greater now, how can we make sense of it?
We may indeed rely on our peers (we all tend to associate with those similar to us in outlook, intelligence and education and interest), but what of competitive ideology? The prospect that we don't know enough about something? Where is a source of more objective information?
This leads to all communication being commercial in nature -- overt manipulation with no third party to cast a critical eye on claims.
Surely there are many examples of media bias, but also there are examples of good faith attempts to mediate these biases and discover broader truths. The government, especially, would love the independent professional media to disappear -- who would hold it accountable?
Idealistically yours,
Sean