[Welcome Jessica Clark and Tracy Van Slyke, and Host Matthew Kerbel.] [As a courtesy to our guests, please keep comments to the book. Please take other conversations to a previous thread. - bev]
Anyone interested in how progressives are using the Internet as a vehicle for political and social action should pick up Jessica Clark and Tracy Van Slyke’s accessible, provocative book, Beyond the Echo Chamber: Reshaping Politics Through Networked Progressive Media (The New Press, 2010). Their micro-analysis of networked progressive activism forms a topographical map of the loosely affiliated groups and individuals who have emerged as a movement in a rapidly changing media environment. Using this map, readers can sort their way through the thicket of interrelated legacy publications, websites, blogs and social networking sites that constitute the hubs and highways of the progressive movement and understand how progressives have been using new media to push back against the political status quo. Especially for those who are engaged in the process, having the opportunity to understand how their efforts are reinforced and influenced by the contributions of those in other portions of the far-flung blogosphere gives purpose and definition to the broader workings of an often ill-defined entity.
The book’s title refers to the volume Echo Chamber by Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Joseph Cappella of the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School, which explores how the right built a media juggernaut that has energized conservatives around a well-reinforced group identity. Clark and Van Slyke acknowledge the idea that partisan communication engages people politically and take Jamieson and Cappella one step further: what Rush Limbaugh and Fox News have done for the right, the Internet has done for the left – only more effectively, because the open architecture of the Web meshes with the philosophical predispositions of the left to create a politics of community that leverages the best the Internet has to offer.
The authors combine theory and case study observations with their practical experiences as progressive activists (Van Slyke was once publisher and Clark executive editor of In These Times magazine). Clark and Van Slyke approach technology, journalism and political action as elements of a system, and showcase the way changes in each have facilitated changes in the others. Where a decade ago there was no progressive media strong enough to challenge either mainstream reporting or the right’s well-financed “noise machine,” the middle of the last decade witnessed the evolution of an interconnected media network fostered by emerging technology and the motivational pull of Bush administration policies. Initially, there were big gaps in the network, limiting its reach and effectiveness linking up emerging progressive media portals with established progressive organizations, elected officials, and mainstream media. But, these gaps were filled organically and, in retrospect, quickly, producing a fairly robust progressive infrastructure capable of influencing political outcomes and policy debates.
Rather than approaching the Internet as a singular entity, Clark and Van Slyke identify four overlapping layers of networks that collectively delineate the contours of netroots activism: networked users; self-organized networks; institutional networks; and networks of institutions. Networked users are people like you and me – the tens of millions linked to the online public sphere who use the Internet to read, respond to, recommend or create online content. Self-organized networks are integrated groups of users who proactively come together to create online communities. Institutional networks are either created by organizations that exist in the bricks and mortar world as they look to transition to the Internet world, like NOW, the Sierra Club, and the ACLU, or web-natives like MoveOn.org. Networks of institutions form when online entities use social networking tools to exchange information, coordinate strategies, and amplify messaging. Clark and Van Slyke contend that for online progressives to have maximum impact, they need to integrate all four layers into political action strategies – and they identify places where this integration is taking place and making a difference.
The authors elaborate a set of interrelated approaches they feel could amplify the impact and expand the reach of online progressives, aimed at combating the power of established political and media elites, the stickiness of right-wing messaging, and the assumptions of conventional journalism by drawing on the potential for openness and diversity that flow naturally from the Internet’s decentralized architecture. Clark and Van Slyke use the term “media makers” to describe those who have some influence over the shape of these strategies. It stands in sharp contrast to the companion term “media owners” – used to describe the limited few who had influence over the means of communication in the centralized world of conventional media – and is descriptive of the way progressives have been figuring out ways to unlock the political potential of cyberspace.
There’s a lot to talk about here, a lot of provocative questions to consider about the implications for policy, politics and journalism. The authors quote Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks on the difference the Internet has made: “Before, you had to beg someone to put you on the air,” he said. “In this [Internet] model, you create your own air. We’re broadcasting because we say we are.” Beyond the Echo Chamber is infused with this proactive spirit and sense of potential, grounded in a subtle understanding of networked politics.



124 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Jessica, Tracy, Welcome to the Lake.
Matt, Welcome back and thank you for Hosting today’s Book Salon.
Hi, thanks for having us!
Glad to be here!
Thanks, Bev — and welcome to Jessica and Tracy.
Welcome to the Lake Jessica and Tracy. Thanks you for coming.
Is there hope for us?
Perhaps we can start out with a brief description of the structure of the conservative echo chamber as it contrasts with the progressive media network.
Oh there’s hope! That’s why we wanted to write this book-to show how progressive media has succeed in the past and lay out strategies of what it needs to do in the future.
Hi, Matt and Elliot–there’s definitely hope, and it lies in the difference between the top-down, lockstep conservative echo chamber, and the possibilities for distributed communication in the progressive network.
I’ll let Tracy explain more.
Give us a sec to get the hang of this chat format, though :)
Good afternoon Tracy, Jessica, and Matthew and welcome to FDL
Tracy and/or Jessica, I have not had a chance to read your book and forgive me if you talk about this in there but, where do you think Net Neutrality fits in with everything (as he lofts a softball down the heart of the plate)? :})
The right has built a successful and powerful top-down echo chamber that allows them to drive their messaging and “reporting” into the mainstream (and become the mainstream). They’ve built it over the last 30 years-and it integrates everyone from their grassroots to their media darlings. Enough noise coming from every side and you get a dominant meme. We show in our book how the progressive media has used the internet to drive real reporting and messaging into the mainstream: break stories, fight the right, impact policy and more.
Net Neutrality is the very baseline infrastructure for not only the progressive media, but all media consumption AND access in the future. Jess will elaborate more.
How does firedoglake fit into the way you are looking at these networks?
It takes a few minutes to get used to the feel of the format! To pick up on what Jessica wrote, Echo Chamber details the possibilities available to progressives by virtue of the decentralized nature of what is now an evolving media network — something the right does not have. So, there is certainly reason for hope.
Net neutrality is a crucial underpinning for networked progressive media, because it allows small outlets and blogs to operate on a “level playing field” with large commercial media companies. If the Comcasts of the world can reach consumers over a faster, flashier connection, it’ll create a two-tiered system that will ruin what’s most powerful about the Web–equal opportunity connection to all audiences.
As a technical note, there’s a “Reply” button in the lower right hand of each comment. If you click “Reply” it pre-fils the commenter name and comment number you are replying to. It helps for all to follow the conversation.
Note: If you have refreshed the page, the Reply may not always work correctly and fill in the information if you click it before the page has finished loading.
Firedoglake is actually one of the featured media outlets we look at in the book, under our chapter “Assembling the Progressive Choir.” FDL has combined analysis, reporting, transparency and real interaction with users. They are not “preaching to the choir,” but has also built up enough trust with its users to help move them to take action en masse-donate, petition, help out with campaigns, etc…
Thanks Matt–I think that what really helps progressives is that they don’t feel that they need to stick to the same talking points. They actually value debate. The approach that conservatives have taken to communication has been unveiled as manipulative by both blogs and programs like the Daily Show.
Tracy — I wonder if you could give an example of how progressives have used the Internet to successfully drive messages into the mainstream.
Quit using the weasel-word “progressive.” It’s invention was a compelte cave-in to the right-wingers, and their successful effort to make Liberal a dirty word.
DON’T FALL FOR IT.
We’re Liberals — and should be proud of it.
In your book (which I am thoroughly enjoying), you contrast the conservative echo chamber, which is top down, with the progressive echo chamber, which is more democratic, by definition.
Could you talk about how this has worked (or not worked) for progressives in the health care debate.
One prime example was when the Bush administration tried to privatize Social Security. What we saw–as a reaction from progressives–bloggers and legacy media-was the first example of how online networks successfully drove back this insane proposition..
That’s exactly my evaluation. Nice to have it verified.
Actually, the net neutrality debate itself was a prime example of how progressives used what we call the four “network layers”–we’ve visualized them here: http://www.beyondtheecho.net/awesome-visuals/
They include networked individuals, self-forming networks, institutional networks and networks of institutions. In Ch. 2 of the book we lay out how this worked in the fight for the open internet.
Well cvslevy–the healthcare debate has been interesting. With the right now more unified (oppositional power) they have a hunger to defeat anything the administration proposes. At the same time, progressives have had to learn how to deal with what being in power actually means. We’ve seen a lot of new strategies that we talk about in the book employed by many progressive media makers, but the fight has been so fractured around policy, there has been more of a defensive reaction vs. a proactive one. In some ways, I think this reflects some from our “Beyond Pale, Male and Stale” chapter–mostly on the stale side. We waited too long-explaining policy vs. a huge, accessbile narrative on the impact of health care–now and what it could possibly do.
Greetings – glad to have you here.
Can you talk some more about institutions? And how progressive ones are coming about and evolving?
Because I can think of many conservative ones, but only so many progressive ones; partially and particularly because of Traditional Media play in favor of the conservative types.
Actually, Progressive did apparently come in to use first.
I’m interested in the power and high-impact media that supports our values and quality journalism coming from our side. The label of progressive and liberal has different meanings for different people (including different communities of color). We dive into that in the book.
One of the things we write about was the strategy to build and fund more explicitly progressive infrastructure to mirror institutions on the right. Organizations like Media Matter for America, CAP, Demos, Campaign for America’s Future and more were all heavily funded throughout the second Bush term. Along the way they’ve learned to operate in more “net-native” ways, while older organizations like the ACLU, Sierra Club, etc. have been playing catch-up. They’re still struggling for air time, but they’ve definitely gained ground and are real pillars for coverage, strategy and media monitoring. We still think there needs to be more direct funding for media projects themselves, though, especially on rising platforms like mobile.
I agree with your analysis. And “Male, Pale, and Stale” is one of my favorite chapters of your book.
Beyond narratives, one of the things that happened during the healthcare debate is progressives engaged in a range of inside and outside strategies. Many of which played out here on FireDogLake but, in the decentralized manner you write about, they emerged from numerous places and were facilitated by the networked quality of progressive media. This seems to illustrate one of the more important points in your book.
What role do you see for the progressive media in creating/moving “big ideas” vs. detailed explanation of policy arguments, i.e. what balance should there be between arguing from emotions and arguing from logic. I ask because a lefty critique of the right media is that it is all emotion-based sound bites.
The important thing to note about these institutions is that not only do they have communities already built in (that other media organizations can tie into) but they are producing high-quality media. All of this builds upon how we can engage our online networks to drive stories and information into the mainstream for maximum impact.
There needs to be a balance. While we don’t encourage stoking populist fires, we do note in the “Beyond Pale, Male and Stale” chapter that progressives have a habit of taking themselves a bit too seriously, depending too heavily on the assumption that rational argument will save the day. It’s important to incorporate humor, humanism,bits from the zeitgeist. Otherwise people won’t listen. That’s what the whole debate about “framing” touched upon.
That’s a good point to underscore, Tracy. Our definition of “media” has widened as more and more players have been able to make and distribute media online. It’s been pretty confusing for journalists, but a revelation for many of us.
As context, it might be helpful for you to know our six main strategies for progressive media to operate in a network-powered media environment.
1) Build network-powered media
2) Fight the Right
3) Embrace 21st Century Muckraking
4) Assemble the Progressive Choir
5) Take it to Hill
6) Move Beyond Pale, Male and Stale.
We’re happy to explain any of those or give examples.
How does collaboration fit into your idea of moving beyond the right-wing echo-chamber?
It would probably be useful to give some examples of these, Tracy — why don’t we start at the top. In Chapter 4, when you talk about building network-powered media, you go into detail on those four layers of networks that you touched on earlier. Maybe you could elaborate on that.
Yes, the decentralization is part of where the power lies—not only does it allow people to be part-time journalists or part-time advocates, but it adds to the nuance of the public debate. Having progressives all over the country weighing in using different platforms and styles, and connecting with their own networks creates a ground-up momentum that can sometimes surprise the Beltway insiders.
Great question. While the right coordinates on talking points, hammering them home from all angles, we need to figure out our own model for working together. As Jessica noted, the left won’t operate that way (we like debate and diversity too much). BUT we can find ways to collaborate together–working on editorial projects and reporting, finding ways to sync our audiences/networks to work or take action together, share resources (sources, tools, skills, etc..). Resources are draining away from journalism organizations, so this is not only important for progressive media organizations, but the right step forward for journalism in general. We want to figure out how media organizations can survive based on collaboration vs. ownership which results in consolidation (and crappy journalism).
Here’s a sense of the four network layers:
Networked users are are people like you, who share stories, videos and campaigns with friends, colleagues and those concerned with the same topics over social media platforms. (More here: http://bit.ly/4oNgfw)
Self-organized networks are created by networked users on or across platforms like Facebook or Twitter around particular issues or events. Media makers can tap into these to amplify coverage or keep pace with a cresting issue. (More here: http://bit.ly/7yEJmE)
Institutional Networks are hosted by nonprofits, campaigns or companies. They can serve as a reliable pool of users who want to read more about a topic, serve as sources, or crowdsource content. (More here: http://bit.ly/cU69gz)
Networks of Institutions are the building blocks for a progressive media infrastructure, as they link media outlets together for shared coverage, or connect both outlets and institutions together for joint information sharing and action. (More here: http://bit.ly/90MmfM)
One critique I’m sure you’ve heard is that the sort of structure you’re describing amounts to like-minded people talking to each other — a different type of echo chamber than what you have on the right, to be sure, but an echo chamber nonetheless. Yet, you demonstrate how the collaborative nature of progressive media networks is what makes successful political and social action possible. What factors contribute to turning what might be an insular structure into something that can, as you say, make a difference in the world outside the Internet?
I’m sure this idea is sprinkled throughout your book, but I’m very interested in “Seizing the Frame” of the arguments of the day.
For instance, we have not as a group done a good job of taking out the “soft on terror” meme as regards liberals.
Do you have a strategy about collaboration/shared resources that addresses this?
There’s plenty here that most of us agree about, like single payer medical care, like economic stimulus to households not corps, etc. Doesn’t seem to be on the agenda and we can’t get it on the agenda. Or can we? So far, Obama’s shown nothing but contempt for truly progressive ideas, which also happen to be what the majority of voters want.
I also think that the decentralization makes people feel less powerless – whether they are supporting or opposing a policy. I felt that very strongly when Robert Greenwald used his multiple platforms for Rethink Afghanistan during the period leading up to the state of the Union speech. Through movie showings and Facebook activities he mobilized people to go on the White House website to support a withdrawl from Afganistan.
First-I always find it odd that some critique the Internet bc it encourages people to silo off into their own factions. The Internet makes it more possible to access different kinds of information and allows people to share (which is key) information, perspectives, and news on a level they’ve never had before.
Next–I think that we need to extend this concept and use of our networks even more. We need to expand who is in our networks–usually this is people that are familiar to us–our friends, colleagues, people who share same opinion about political issues. One critical thing we need to do is expand our networks to include more diversity (i’m harping on beyond pale, male and stale again).
In turn–media makers can help reach out to bring more diverse users into their already existing online networks as well as create spaces for these networks to self-organize, take action, both online and offline.
Part of what we’re advocating is that progressive media makers get more clarity about what their strategies are so that they can be proactive rather than reactive. “Frame setting” can happen in different ways—it can be a linguistic endeavor, like George Lakoff talks about. This involves trying to understand how to link talking points to the deep cultural understandings we’ve all got. That’s more appropriate for media projects who are, in our terminology, “fighting the right” or “assembling the choir.” It’s fine for them to use uniform language because they’re trying to do battle out in the public sphere, or convince like-minded progressives of a particular angle. But for the journalists, frame-setting is less appropriate. Their power lies in investigation that reveals the limits in the frames advanced by conservatives, or in fact checking. When they get swept up in memes like the “soft on terror” line, that’s when they’ve failed to do their job.
you think we need to “Luntz up”?
The politicians can “Luntz up” if they want to, but I think that’s actually kind of detrimental to the progressive media network, because it’s inauthentic.
What’s truly revolutionary about the Internet and yes, organizations like Brave New Films or FDL is that they don’t set their users up to be passive receivers of information. They encourage them to take action. This is much harder for traditional journalism organizations who feel that this violates their journalistic code. But to continue to be relevant, expand their audiences and reach new ones, traditional organizations are going to have to find the right formula for encouraging user action. That can range from engaging in reporting on a story or helping to drive stories out for maximum impact.
It’s certainly a viable strategy, though, to fight talking points with talking points. It’s just important to be transparent about it when you’re doing so—not to buy into the bankrupt communication habits that the mainstream media encourages.
Tracy or Jessica — do you see the digital divide limiting the potential for progressive networking?
I think that’s two different forks of the road here.
One would be a News/Journalist type institution, where one would want to avoid the soft on terror line, like say Scott Horton. That would devalue his reporting. That’s an informational institution, and needs to stay “pure” in that regard.
Another would be a values institution, which indeed, needs to counter the soft on terror line from my point of view. In that situation, is not a superior counter-meme required?
We’ve actually created a graphic that illustrates this too–what we call the “Cycle of Engagement” that media makers need to consider in order to incorporate users into their production strategies.
While the digital divide is slowly (and i mean slowly) disappearing, it is still a huge issue. And that’s something that should concern all progressives/liberals, because the demographics of our country are rapidly changing. Who we reach and how we reach them is critical to the survival and impact of our media.
At the same time, we’ve also seen a huge rise in mobile (phone) use by many different community (Latinos, African Americans). Figuring out how to deliver content and engage users through mobile (especially text) is a huge opportunity for progressive media makers of all stripes.
Even a sustained counter-Lutz, counter-Pete Peterson economic message?
Because it is indeed an economic fact that the deficit matters less than unemployment right this instant, and that SocSec is not a “problem” such that those people say it is.
Perhaps I’m getting a bit confused about your network elements and what bit applies where.
Yes, that’s right. It’d be the job of the reporters to investigate whether progressives have indeed been “soft on terror” (shoe bomber anyone?), while it’d be the job of an outlet like Brave New Films or AlterNet to offer an opposing meme.
The networks can serve multiple functions: they can carry both memes and news. It’s the strategies of the makers/outlets/bloggers etc. that matter in this case–they need to have a clear sense of their function in order to be effective.
And then the next step is how to bring all that information together in an accessible manner that criss crosses the networks of both the traditional orgs and the activist media orgs. They should give their users the opportunity to be part of the media making, encourage them to distribute the content and/or take action from the content…
Picking up on Jessica’s observation that it could be detrimental to “Luntz up” because it would be inauthentic, I’d draw the distinction between television politics — which is at its core inauthentic because it’s all about dominating debate with emotional (and often false) messaging — and Internet politics, which at its core is about dialogue. I’ve made the case in my writing that we’re in a transitional period. Television still dominates, but we’ve seen groups and individuals first understand, then apply the kind of politics Jessica and Tracy talk about using the Internet. I’m wondering if either of you have any thoughts about the influence of conventional politics on Internet politics, and how that might change over the next few years.
Here–let’s take an easy example and run it through our six strategies: environmentalism:
1) Build Network-Powered Media
This means we need not just legacy environmental outlets like Sierra magazine reporting on global warming, sustainability, etc. We need online magazines like Grist, connected to enviro bloggers, we need people making short viral videos about sad polar bears, we need Al Gore barnstorming around the world, offering up links to his PowerPoint, etc.–all self-reinforcing.
2) Fight the Right
A subset of these bloggers, videographers etc. need to be actively creating messages and media that counter the idea that global warming isn’t happening and that we should keep hogging down gas.
continued in the next post…
No questions for Jessica or Tracy, only much thanks for being here and for writing this book.
It feels so familiar, like reading somebody else’s account of the life I’ve lived for the last six years, watching internet-mediated communications change the power dynamic.
I want to extend specific thanks to Jessica and Tracy for writing something so straightforward and easy to grasp that I can recommend it to the non-techies who are entering politics. Quite literally, I mean that; I met with a candidate and his campaign team this afternoon, people who are not internet savvy but who desperately need to get up to speed quickly with how media has changed and how they can begin to use it. This book will be perfect for them, will help them understand where we are today and how we got here.
What a treat to see Tracy here – and Jessica. And to see the book I know you’ve worked so hard on become reality. Bravo!
3) Embrace 21st Century Muckraking:
A subset of these reporters, bloggers, etc. need to be investigating environmental degradation, the myth of clean coal, etc. They should be using new tools like crowdsourcing, data visualization, and multiplatform distribution as they do so
4) Take it to the Hill:
The networked environmental media can work selectively with activists trying to change policy by providing evidence, frames, well-crafted video, etc–and covering the battles when mainstream media won’t
5) Assemble the Progressive Choir:
Blogs and outlets like FDL, the Nation, AlterNet can keep dedicated progressives informed and fired up about environmental issues, and hosts debates within the movement about facts and approaches
6) Move Beyond Pale, Stale and Male
Outlets, blogs, etc. dedicated to serving constituencies usually ignored by traditional progressive outlets can pick up the piece of the story about how environmentalism and social justice overlap. Others can actually try to make this story interesting and fun, as opposed to a slog about regulations and carbon caps.
All of these strategies work in tandem across the network layers to lead to progressive victories.
Perhaps I hold a naive point of view, but I believe it’s working the opposite way.
I think that part of the reason print media is dying is not just the revenue model, but because the print revenue model doesn’t include interactivity; “if I can’t talk back to you, you’re dead to me.”
Well the thing about conventional (television) politics is that it’s pretty cheap and easy way to fill in the news on a 24-7 basis. (That doesn’t mean that it’s good btw.) The more quality journalism disappears, the more the influence of that work can effect what’s being produced and discussed online.
BUT I have high confidence that progressive media organizations are going to fight to produce quality content for a very long time. And like FDL, we are going to see more and more blogs get into the reporting game.
Thanks Siun! We’re so happy to be here!
Thanks! We’re glad to hear it’s approachable, that was one of our goals.
You are right on Kelly. Once again, many media consumers don’t want to be passive with their news, they want to take action-even if it’s just about sharing that info with their friends or family. The more and more progressive media orgs. can encourage and support their audiences to be active participants and partners, the more their audience and influence will grow.
Wow Rayne-that’s really fabulous to hear. Thanks so much!
Can I ask for some advice on dealing with established Liberal groups? One of the problems I have is that when I create a media idea to the groups the back away because either it is to agressive or it was “not invented here”
I know something about coming up with actions that are successful and get good coverage ( see Spocko vs talk radio hosts in the New York Times, USA today or the Guardian in the UK)
but when i’ve approached established groups withother ideas I’ve been ignored or told that they can’t get into a fight with the people I’m targeting or the issue I’m pushing.
Sure my targets have been big but I have also been successful. I’ve also helped other smaller groups with media strategies.
My latest ideas are variations of my other ideas. Hitting right wing media in the wallet.
I’ve approached groups like Media Matters, the Commonweal Institute and a few others and the are happy to listen but when it comes to support ( especially financially) they are reluctant to help. They are happy to let you do it for free but I’m kind of tired of being asked to do it for free.
Wingnut welfare isn’t something to sniff at. It’s hard to keep trying to do this work without real support.
Jay Rosen had an interesting post last year about how social and online media are eroding the authority of the gatekeepers. I think that goes for the politicians too–the more chances we have of seeing them unscripted, the less seriously we have to take them. This is a win for democracy.
I think you’re correct, Kelly — the Internet is changing how politics is done. And, I think your point about why newspapers are dying is also on target. I was getting at a slightly different point — that the messaging and networking capabilities of the Internet still have to do battle with a television model. One of the reason we often feel we have to shout to be heard is because there are still vehicles for blasting messages that can reach a lot of people who don’t always pay close attention.
Yes, that’s very frustrating. But on the plus side, there are more progressives on TV these days–not just as hosts, but as guests. And as people’s TV viewing habits migrate more to on-demand, the balance might tip further. But until then, thank god for Stephen Colbert!
I also thought Obama’s “question time” with the Republicans was kind of a revelation. Let’s see more of that!
“One of the problems I have is that when I create a media idea to the groups the back away because either it is to aggressive or it was “not invented here””
That quote hit the nail on the head of roadblocks. While you can go to MMFA or Commonweal-getting through their beaurocracy or their already strained resources is going to be tough. But if you build yourself as a credible, transparent operator that’s both providing info and helping organize people to action, you can build these powerful networks on your own. I know it’s easier said than done, but you can tap into communities at FDL, Daily Kos, Facebook, etc… to find these people. If you can do it, then you might find MMFA coming to work with you next time.
On institutions like MMFA-it might be smart of them to create spaces online for you and others like you to organize. While it might not have the MMFA muscle behind it, they are helping people to engage with each other.
You know, Jessica, the widespread reaction to Obama’s “question time” — that this is a rare and significant moment in modern politics because it was unscripted — says everything we need to know about what television has done to political discourse!
Hey bud! I was just thinking of you. If there’s anybody for you to talk with, it’s Tracy and Jessica.
I think they’d find you to be a one-man-show who spans across their network elements idea. I think the only thing you’re not, is an institution – yet! :)
Has everyone seen Demand Question Time? http://demandquestiontime.com/
If you want more of what you saw when Obama went up against the GOP last week or even the Dems ealier this week, check out the link.
Jessica and Tracy — building on the discussion earlier about 21st century muckraking, I thought you made an interesting distinction in your book between objectivity as the standard for 20th century reporting and transparency as the standard for 21st century journalism. Could you elaborate on that?
Yes these organizations are just like any others—once they’ve established their fiefdoms they get a bit self-protective. But at the same time it’s worth examining your own strategies to see if they really line up with theirs. Commonweal, for example, is a think tank—it doesn’t fit their profile to try confrontational tactics. But an outlet like FDL or Feministing or Air America (RIP) can take a more aggressive line and have fun doing so.
By the way, if any of you live in the DC area (sorry about snowpocalypse!) we’re going to be at Busboys&Poets on Wed. night for book event/reading… You should join or spread the word… Here’s more info: http://bit.ly/94k4F2
I know, it’s pretty pathetic! But there’s now a [networked] movement out there to make that a more regular thing: here’s the Facebook page
We’re doing a panel the day before that too, weather willing,at the new America Foundation: http://www.newamerica.net/events/2010/making_media_work
oops, jinx Tracy!
I have to say that trying to do citizen journalism can be tougher than people expect because of the way gatekeepers can”define you out” take for example my last attempt which some here know about. I was attempting to get on the NewsCorp Q2 2010 financial conference call. My goal was to as them a question about the impact of Color of Change’s program where 81 advertisers pulled their ads from the Glenn Beck show.
I had the data, crafted the question and tried to get on the call. “I’m sorry this call is for financial analysts and journalists only. Are you a journalist?”
“yes I’m a citizen journalist.”
“who do you write for?”
“my blog Spockos Brain”
“I’m sorry.”
Now I suppose I could have said “fire dog lake” but I didn’t have Jane’s permission.
This is a problem with anyone who is trying to act like an activist/journalist.
Ah yes. So objectivity-the idea that the reporter has no opinion and is reporting both of the sides with equal gravitas. (Which results in reporters giving tons of space to the climate deniers when they’ve been proven wrong so many times its hard to count.) Transparency-when the reporter is being clear about his/her ideological stance or belief, but still providing factual, credible information for the user.
Yes, there have been some successes in getting bloggers press passes, arguing that they should be able to protect their sources, etc., but we’ve got a ways to go.
You are absolutely right. It’s an elitist barrier that we’re going to have to breakdown if we want journalism, media and frankly, our democracy to survive and thrive. While we want to support excellent “professional” journalists, driving the “citizen” journalists out of the process is not a smart thing to do. But remember, blogs like FDL were still being dismissed only a few years ago. While many still look down on FDL or its role, FDL has broken down many of these barriers. I see the same happening for citizen journalists over the next few years. You are one of the pioneers!
So, let’s talk about the factual, credible part. There are sites like TalkingPointsMemo, where their credibility has long been established, but how will transparency work for someone on a less well established blog? Do they have to demonstrate their credibility, and if so how?
We think that progressive news outlets like Mother Jones have actually done a great job being both factually accurate and transparent about their motivations, while outlets like Fox News claim to be “fair and balanced” but hide behind the mantle of mainstream journalism. This is dangerous. Everyone should be forced to reveal their biases, their funding sources, and their reporting procedures: commercial, public and mainstream media alike.
Through rigorous sourcing, fact-checking, and solid reporting. That’s what Josh Marshall did, and it took awhile to break through but he persevered.
It’s important to remember: much of the public doesn’t trust mainstream news either…
He also invited his users/audience to be part of his team. If he made a mistake and they told him, he corrected or acknowledged it. If they helped build out elements of a story he (or his reporters) were doing, they were transparent about how the story was being put together. He established credibility with his audience because he involved them in the process.
Here are a few recent articles about transparency that I found interesting:
Objectivity isn’t truthful — it’s pathological
http://korrvalues.com/2010/01/30/objectivity-isnt-truthful-its-pathological/
Being ‘Objective’ Is Killing Newspapers, But We’ll Be Much Worse Off When They Go Out of Business:
http://www.alternet.org/story/145561/being_%27objective%27_is_killing_newspapers%2C_but_we%27ll_be_much_worse_off_when_they_go_out_of_business
That’s very true, Jessica. Looking at this from a different perspective, mainstream journalists will push back against different reporting standards, and may not even recognize them as being relevant to journalism. Do you see this as an issue?
Yes, it’s definitely an issue, and it’s an open question what users will seek out and come to accept. For the casual news consumer, taking the time to check out the biases and credentials of every reporter is too much work. But the very act of demanding and providing transparency will provide fodder for more reporting, and mainstream reporters who refuse to play will be called out for their unwillingness to reveal sources.
Traditional reporters have been pushing back against any new concept for years (thus, them not being able to stay up to date with the new opportunities or ways of operating online. Some are still freaked out by blogs.)
We’re not trying to say that we need to change reporting standards-fact-checked, well-sourced, informed–all the basic tenets of quality journalism. But let’s stop the pretending that all stories have two equal sides or that the reporter has no informed opinion about the issue. That’s not to say that the reporter shouldn’t acknowledge opposing arguments, but if that reporter has been working the beat long enough, they should be able to tell the audience what is credible and what is not.
It’s also just a way to emphasize the point that everyone’s got an opinion and a personal life, like it or not. Some reporters go so far as to say they don’t even vote because it would express bias; I think that’s a shameful lack of civic responsibility.
We may have exchanged words about this; we definitely need some sort of collective body or umbrella organization which can act as a clearinghouse for credentialing.
Had a similar problem as managing editor of a nonprofit online news outlet; the state’s press association would not grant membership to any outlet which did not have a print issue and had not been in existence for two years or more. There was no way we would ever meet their criteria.
And then the language barrier: they wouldn’t grant membership to outlets which published in any language besides English. Who would ever want to belong to an organization which was this biased, even for credentialing? We didn’t publish in English, but we did have a Hispanic beat; what would happen if we chose to publish in Spanish?
There has to be a better methodology for progressive news outlets to get credentialing.
In line with this the Congressional Press Office won’t give credentials to non-profit journalism orgs. So groups like the Center for Independent Media (a great non-profit that publishes the Washington Independent) couldn’t get a Congressional Press Pass. BUT corporations that publish trade publications can get those passes. It’s a fight that’s still going on.
It’s a great conversation and organizing fight to be had-defining the next gen of “credible journalists.” Something we could work on together!
In a way, the differences between the two approaches reflect the dramatically different environments they’re working in. Objectivity is an artifact of commercial journalism — the need to appeal to large audiences — and balance emerged as a convenient way to report the news (ostensibly) without a point of view. One of the refreshing things about transparency you don’t have to pretend that you don’t have a point of view.
I don’t mean to be a thread hog, but I think that this salon is up against a SuperBowl occupied media time, so I’ll just merrily continue if there are no objections. :)
About anonymous sources. Do you folks think that for the progressive journalistic institutions there would be more credibility the less anonymous sources were used? Should not anonmymity be reserved for the most sensitive and whistleblowerish types of stories?
Accountability is craved for these days, I think, by all folks of any party.
mainstream media don’t even fact check anymore. A group of bloggers that I organized found out more details about who was behind the pet food tainting in 2007 that the MSM. They FDA wouldn’t let us on the press conference.
None of the reporters found out the name of the chicken processor that fed the tainted pet food to 20 million chickens that then entered the human food supply. We did. But the media just took the word of the FDA that they could Not reveal the name of the processor. This was because the Chicken processor convinced the FDA that the public didn’t need to know.
Now I didn’t want to take on big chicken after just taking on ABC/Disney. I don’t have Oprahs money to deal with food dispagemeng laws. I don’t have any Institutional protection. This is a big problem being on your own even with a networked support group.
There’s a ball game going on? :-)
Yes, it seems pretty clear from the audience numbers out there that many people prefer their news with a bit of opinion mixed in.
I’ve heard as much. :)
Yes, I think any anonymous sourcing should be accompanied by a clear explanation of why the source needed to be anonymous. What are the possible consequences for that source revealing him or herself? Otherwise, the practice lends itself to abuses.
3-0 Indianapolis
[Mod Note: Although with good intentions, please keep to the Book Salon topic. Thank you.]
Kelly-I agree-anonymous sources are dangerous and allow those in power to leak info or spread their talking points without any accountability. Anonymous sources (except for rare cases) is bad for journalism and its bad for democracy. Period.
Now, back to the important topic-what’s this ball game you are talking about?
It’s also just lazy reporting, along the lines of “many say…X”
Right. This was much the same issue as when you and I were looking into Fox News liability and shareholders when it came to 3rd party violence.
And the issue is still alive, although with “Operation Rescue” offering their latest $10,000 “bounties.”
Who’s winning? Will Mardi Gras go nuclear?
In light of that ball game — whatever it is may be drawing people away from our discussion. So, I’m gong to take this opportunity to bring the formal part of our discussion to a close. I’d like to thank everyone for participating tonight, and I’d especially like to thank Tracy and Jessica. They’ve written a wonderful, thought-provoking book, and I’ve enjoyed the opportunity to host this discussion with them.
Thanks, Matt for your great questions and gracious review!
Thank you Matt! It was great chatting with all of you. We had a lot of fun and hope it was interesting for you. We hope you’ll pick up the book and check us out at beyondtheecho.net.
Now going to see what all this fuss about a “ball game” is about… (Wandering towards television…)
Just saying that this is a barrier in a piece of the network element you guys are talking about.
From looking at that visual piece linked to a while back, this is about the muckracking.
I got a particularly nasty email from 60Plus.org which was basically a non-attorney saying “cease and desist.”
Jessica, Tracy, Thank you for stopping by the Lake and spending the afternoon discussing your new book with us.
Matt, Thank you for Hosting this lively Book Salon.
Everyone, this is a great book if you haven’t bought a copy yet, here is a link.
Thanks all.
Sorry to see you guys go – was a fun chat!
Adios.
G’night
Thank you Tracy, and Jessica
and as always Bev