Chicago Tribune Columnist: Hey You People Online With Opinions... Get Off My Lawn!

from the that-bad,-huh? dept

Reader Cannen alerts us to yet another column by yet another old school newspaper guy whining about the fact that "the people" now have the ability to have their voices heard. What's funny is that his own column seems to contradict his statements.

Don't get me wrong. I am also an outraged narcissist, but I had to work six-hour shifts in Bakersfield, Calif., to earn my stripes as a communicator. Nowadays, having a Twitter page qualifies a person to give commentary on CNN. I am not interested in the take of @stinky on the Fort Hood shootings or any other current events. I am watching CNN because I expect them to gather the news, not act as a clearinghouse for any bonehead with a computer, a cable modem and a half-baked opinion.

Ah yes, so because today it's easier for people to have a voice, it's bad. Yes, and you used to walk to school uphill both ways in the snow and television was called radio and had no pictures. But the world improves and progress comes along and gives more people a voice and that's bad how exactly?

With the advent of Twitter, Facebook, instant messaging and texting, now almost any fool can set up his or her broadcast hub. Then the likes of CNN, Fox News, Oprah and even the Tribune play right into their hands, giving them instant access to the rest of the world. I beseech the online editors at this paper to turn off the "comments" after each article. If people have opinions about something that they've just read, let them write a letter to the editor.

Yes, but "any fool" doesn't get quite the attention as, say, a fool who blasts the fact that people have a voice in a major national newspaper, right? Who cares that anyone can say what they want. Most people don't see those complaints. You call it a "broadcast hub" but most people's Twitter accounts don't have very many followers. That's not the issue at all. The actual complaint seems to be that CNN and Fox and others have elevated a few of these folks (a tiny percentage of the overall population using these tools), and you don't like it because.... what, exactly? Because they compete with you in being a public "fool"?

Most of my career has been spent in radio, where call-in comments are somewhat encouraged. The main difference is that we can hang up on people.

Ok, let me get this straight. Before you were complaining that CNN and Fox were putting these people on their shows, but then you say at least on radio you could "hang up on people." Do you not sense the contradiction? CNN and Fox can just as easily "hang up" on these people too. So what's the difference?

Basically, it sounds like the guy is pissed off that he's no longer the only person with an opinion getting heard. But, of course, he's missing the point in blaming the new technology. Yes, lots of people have a voice, but most still don't get heard very far. The folks who are getting on TV or are making their voices heard are because they're saying something that resonates, whether it's stupid or not. And, no, maybe they didn't have to practice being a public moron in some small town first, but is that really a necessity?

34 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Australian Court Says Tweeting From Court Can Be A Good Thing

from the smart-courts-down-under dept

We've written a few times about the legal battle in Australia between ISP iiNet and anti-piracy group AFACT. The actual trial's been going on -- and we haven't written much about the day-to-day, figuring we'll wait until there's a verdict. However, Jason sent over an interesting side note. Some had noticed that there was a flurry of Twitter reporting from the courtroom, as various reporters have been using Twitter to get real-time info out about the trial. Apparently, the fact that some had called attention to this scared off The Australian, who told its reporter to stop Tweeting from the courtroom, wondering if it might get them in trouble.

Not so much, apparently. When asked about it, the court basically said it was fine. While it admitted that it hadn't really put too much thought into potential downsides, on the whole, it viewed portable technology as a good way to quickly inform the public:

The practice is relatively new and -- as such -- the court has not had the opportunity to consider any possible adverse implications. It is entirely at the discretion of individual judges how they conduct matters in their court room. We would, of course, be concerned if any device was used that disrupted proceedings.

Nevertheless, on what we know so far, the use of twitter does not seem to have caused any problems and maybe a useful way of informing the public very quickly about what is happening in a court room. The court itself -- through its e-services strategy -- supports the use of portable technology. New portable devices provide a range of functions -- in addition to being a phone -- and are increasingly used by many in the ordinary course of business because they are so efficient.

It's nice to see a court not freak out about such things, but recognize that they're increasingly common and often quite useful.

6 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Social Media Allows For Honest Expression... Don't Stifle It

from the don't-tweet-that dept

There's saying that's been making the rounds lately, in talking about journalism, saying that "trust is the new objectivity." The idea is that if you're trustworthy, even if you have a bias, people are more interested in what you have to say. But, of course, that doesn't just apply to journalists. It pretty much applies to everyone, in any business. People are tired of fake connections. They want real connections. That's what connecting with fans is really all about. If you're honest and open, you build trust. And that trust is valuable. So it's difficult to understand why so many organizations work so hard to stifle that kind of openness. We saw it recently with the Washington Post's new social media guidelines, and we've seen it elsewhere as well, such as with sports teams.

For example, JJ sends in the news that the Jets benched a player for a Twitter message, despite the fact that the team is actually more open to having its players use social media to connect with fans. Hearing this, I figured it must be quite a Twitter message -- seeing as there was just a big controversy over a Redskins player who insulted fans via Twitter, calling them "dimwits" and saying they shouldn't give their opinion on the team since they work at McDonalds. But what did the Jets player say that was so troubling?

"1 play in the 1st Half, 4 plays in the 2nd half,.... A bit disappointed about my playing time but very happy and satisfied about the win."

I'm honestly having a hard time seeing how that's a benchable offense. He was entirely honest, and not accusatory. He was happy that the team won, but wished he could have been involved in more plays. He's a professional athlete, and such sentiments are pretty standard. It actually seems nice that he's sharing with fans in that way. He didn't seem to be complaining or disparaging the team or anyone. He just noted that personally he was "a bit disappointed" that he wasn't more involved.

The fact is, the internet lets people connect with others -- either one-to-one or one-to-many in much more direct and personal ways than ever before in the past. Yes, that has some risks and downsides, but on the whole, that openness and connection builds trust and a relationship, and that's important. It makes no sense to try to stifle such communications, whether its a journalist or a professional athlete.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is It So Wrong To Admit That Journalists Have Opinions Too?

from the hiding-them-doesn't-change-that dept

There was a big kerfuffle in the journalism world over the weekend, as it was revealed late Friday that the Washington Post had rushed out new "social media guidelines" leading one editor to delete his Twitter account, and another to joke that under the new guidelines, his Twitter account would only discuss "the weather and dessert recipes." This isn't the first time news organizations have generated attention for coming up with restrictive social media guidelines. And, of course, one of the more ridiculous aspects of all of this was that the Washington Post didn't reveal what those guidelines are, leading to a ton of speculation and leaving it to a competing news organization to publish the actual guidelines. A big part of the problem here was the lack of transparency from the Washington Post in the first place...

While we're on the subject, the whole thing seems based on this platonic ideal of journalism that involves the objective, unbiased reporter. The guidelines basically tell reporters and editors that they shouldn't say anything that suggests they actually have an opinion on something, and the editor who deleted his Twitterstream did so because it expressed an opinion on certain news events. But, it's time we got over this. Just because people pretend to be objective, it doesn't make them objective. Just because reporters claim to be unbiased, it doesn't make them unbiased.

Yes, it's great to strive to be as fair and impartial as possible. It's important to present as much as is reasonable as possible. But the bias is there. Pretending it isn't is ridiculous -- and, at times, damaging. It's what leads reporters to go overboard in trying to "present both sides of the story" even if one side is completely ridiculous. Reporters have too much trouble saying "wait, that's wrong." They just present what was said and move on, without ever digging into the truth. In the quest for impartiality, they've actually gotten away from providing accuracy and honesty. I'd much rather have reporters clearly state their bias and opinion, and then let others argue the points out.

And, of course, reporters and editors have always had opinions. It's why they have an editorial page, after all. But, even more important, it's bias and opinion that goes into determining what story makes the front page, or the middle page or gets spiked. It's about how the "facts" of the story are presented. There's bias everywhere. Asking reporters to bite their tongue and not actually say what they think doesn't negate the bias, and it doesn't help readers/viewers/listeners get any closer to what's real. It's just a way of avoiding responsibility, avoiding the community, and avoiding doing a good job. In the meantime, as newer publications (mostly online) do away with the ridiculous idea that a party can be fully impartial, the community of people who consume and share and spread and make and comment on the news are going there. Because that's where "the news" is best presented.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

NFL: Refs Banned From Using All Social Media; Press Can't Live Tweet

from the free-speech-ain't-so-free dept

While it doesn't go nearly as far as the ridiculous policies put in place recently by college's Southeastern Conference (SEC) regarding "tweeting" on gameday, Ben alerts us to the news that the NFL has instituted its own social media policy that applies to players, referees and the media. There had been lots of talk about how the NFL was working on such policies, and they seem problematic. They ban players from doing any tweeting or sending any kind of social media message from 90 minutes before the game starts until well after the post-game press conference ends. I'm not sure why it's so troubling that players might want to communicate with fans...

Even odder is that the rules now prohibit NFL referees from using social media, ever. Apparently, some of this is in response to a ref who apologized online for a blown call in the week after it happened. In that case, the ref is an attorney during the week, and apologized via his work email. But that raises all sorts of questions. What if the ref's job during the week requires the use of social media? And, honestly, what's so wrong with letting refs communicate?

Finally, the new rules tell the credentialed media that they can't provide any sort of live "play-by-play" info via social media, though, I can't see how that's enforceable (other than kicking the reporter out of the stadium). Once again, this seems like part of the league's misguided belief that it can control how reporters report on a game. The first link above notes how ridiculous it is that someone sitting in the stands can easily live tweet a play-by-play, while the professional reporters cannot. The whole idea, of course, is that the NFL wants to "protect" its broadcasting contracts, that get sold for a ton. But the idea that a live tweet somehow replaces a TV broadcast is ridiculous. Personally, as someone who follows a bunch of sports reporters on Twitter who do tweet info during sporting events, I find it a useful reminder that I wish I had the time to watch a game...

53 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Catholic Archbishop Apparently Not A Fan Of Social Networking

from the who-unfriended-him? dept

Catholic Archbishop Vincent Nichols apparently is not a big fan of social networking online, as he's making some news for trashing sites like Facebook and MySpace for creating "transient" friendships. He also throws in some bizarre statement about how these sites lead kids to commit suicide. To be honest, his statements don't sound all that different than plenty of old luddites who have never bothered to actually use the technology. And his complaints don't sound all that different complaints heard throughout time by an older generation against what's popular at the time. As we've noted, at various times, people have complained about the nefarious influence of rock 'n roll, comic books, movies, the telephone, novels, plays, the waltz and chess. In every case, the fear is more from someone not understanding what's going on, rather than any real fear, and the issue appears to be the same this time around as well.

Reporter Yumi Wilson, though, points out something more important though: despite what this archbishop is saying, the Catholic Church has actually been embracing social media, using text messages and creating its own social network. It also has a strong presence on Facebook and has used it to connect various Catholics to each other. And, she notes, the Vatican has its own YouTube Channel. Apparently, the Catholic Church, itself, doesn't quite agree with the views of Archbishop Nichols.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Copyright, Investigative Reporting Online... And Domino's Pizza Grossout

from the putting-it-all-together dept

People have been submitting various versions of the infamous Domino's Pizza employee grossout video of two employees doing... er... bad things to food, that's been the talk of the social media world all week, but there really didn't seem to be that much of real interest to talk about here -- or at least nothing that hadn't really been discussed to death elsewhere. As plenty of folks have pointed out, the whole event and Domino's reaction (who knows how successful it will eventually be) will certainly become a regular case study concerning "social media" and how companies can and should respond to certain events. On the whole, I think Domino's has made the best of a really awful situation which has no really good response.

That said, there were two interesting side stories involved in all of this that haven't received much additional attention, but both seem to fit into themes we discuss here on a regular basis. The first is that, in the NY Times' coverage of the story, it notes that the woman involved, Kristy Hammonds, eventually used a copyright claim to get the video taken down from YouTube -- though, of course, they're now available in many more places. It seems like an odd sort of thing to try to pull down via a copyright claim. After all, she had put the video up on YouTube in the first place, even if she later came to regret it. And, by this point, the video is clearly part of a larger news story, so it's not clear if there's really a legitimate DMCA takedown to be issued over the video... Of course, in the end, it's really a meaningless gesture. The video is spread so far and wide that no takedown is going to make it disappear.

The second issue of relevance is the fact that it was folks online at the always excellent Consumerist website who were able to take the original video and track down the actual location of the Domino's franchise in question, and to alert Domino's corporate execs. While we keep hearing old school journalists whine about how no investigative reporting gets done without newspapers, this situation shows exactly how a group of motivated, interested folks, can do plenty of sleuthing and exposing of malfeasance themselves. That's not to say, of course, that this is "the model" for investigative journalism -- but to show that the whole space is changing these days, and it no longer requires a classically trained journalist in every situation. If an investigation needs to happen, there are ways to make it happen.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Press Rediscovers That Mexican Gangs Use YouTube

from the what-goes-around,-comes-around dept

Mexican drug-related violence has been in the news a lot in the last month, so perhaps it's no surprise that USA Today is running a big article about how Mexican gangs and drug cartels use YouTube to communicate and spread messages of intimidation. Of course, two years ago, a bunch of similar stories made the news. The good news, though, is that rather than freaking out about it and demanding YouTube remove the videos, both Mexican and American officials are monitoring the videos to try to pick up clues to gang activities.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

How Soon Until We Start Hearing Stories Of Twitter Criminals?

from the perhaps,-but... dept

You may have recently heard that story of a bank robber who, rather ingeniously, used Craigslist to create a diversion so he could get away with his crime. He put up a message, asking a bunch of people to show up for construction work, and told them what to wear, very specifically. He had them gather near the bank he was planning to rob -- and then wore the same outfit. After robbing the bank, police and security then saw a mob of folks all matching the same basic description as the bank robber. So far, the guy seems to have gotten away with the crime.

However, it's only a matter of time until others start thinking about ways to make use of social media for crime. This isn't to blame social media at all (though, expect the press -- and possibly politicians -- to falsely focus on the tech), as it's just a tool. But it is worth thinking about how criminals might use these technologies, if we want to think about ways to prevent the worst abuses. Jeremy Wagstaff has an interesting post where he wonders if Twitter will become a source of info for scammers and criminals, who gather the info people reveal about themselves to use in a crime. He's riffing off of a David Weinberger blog post, which jokes about how the opposite of the Do Not Disturb sign in many hotels says something along the lines of "Make Up My Room Now." As Weingberg astutely notes, some could interpret this as actually saying: "I'm Out, So This Would Be a Good to Rob Me, Especially If You Are Squeamish about Violence."

Wagstaff wonders if the same is true about status updates on Twitter, Facebook and other social sites -- and someone announcing that they're away from home opens up an opportunity to a burglar to break in. To some extent, I would imagine that could be true -- and I'm almost positive we'll eventually read some story somewhere about a criminal using data on Twitter to do something -- but it's difficult to see how most Twitter messages are really that revealing. It's not that difficult for a potential burglar to just canvas a house and see that the inhabitants go to work every day, and they get the same benefit, totally unrelated to the status message. Also, I'd argue that what a status message leaves out may turn out to be more important than what is put in. For example, my Twitter status might note that I'm traveling and in Chicago right now... but might not mention the fact that a friend, who spent a few years in the army, is housesitting for me and watching my pets. Anyone who relies solely on the Twitter message to decide where to rob, might be in for a bit of a surprise.

In some ways, this whole thing is similar to the "fear" when answering machines first showed up. There were reports that warned people not to say "we're not in right now" as people were told that criminals might use this to figure out who to rob. Instead, they were told to say "we can't get to the phone right now," as a transparent sort of hedge. Of course, the whole thing was silly. It was hardly an efficient way for criminals to find out who to rob, and the actual risk was quite low. The same thing is likely true of any "threat" of criminals using Twitter.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

When Your Social Media Representation Isn't Actually Yours

from the who's-speaking-for-whom? dept

It's been quite interesting over the past few months watching various companies make use of social media tools like Twitter to better communicate with customers or other constituents. Comcast has probably received the most attention, but some other companies have done some interesting things as well. Still, the world was fairly surprised last week when it appeared that oil giant Exxon Mobil was joining in on the fun. A Twitter account appeared that claimed to be a representative, Janet, from Exxon Mobil, and was linking to various stories of interest and responding to questions from the crowd. It appears that Janet wasn't bad at representing Exxon Mobil's views, but it turns out there was just a tiny problem: Exxon Mobil has no clue who she is and says she most certainly is not a representative of the company.

It's not entirely clear who the person actually is or what s/he was trying to accomplish, but it does work to remind people that you shouldn't believe everything you see online -- even if it "feels" true. However, it does raise some other questions about the nature of an "official" spokesperson vs. amateur spokespeople. Whoever "Janet" is, "she" was apparently doing a pretty good job representing the interests of Exxon Mobil. Yes, that could change in an instant, or she could (and may have) misstated an Exxon Mobil position, but in an age where consumers speak up all the time against companies, it's quite interesting to see one effectively standing up for a company as well. That doesn't mean it's good to see someone representing your brand falsely (that's what we call "fraud"), but it does raise questions about "deputizing" amateurs to represent you in situations where it's clear (unlike in this situation) they're not official representatives, but amateurs who support what you do.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Nissan Builds Internal MySpace While Sun Builds Internal Second Life

from the social-media-inside-the-enterprise dept

There's been a lot of talk over the last couple years about "enterprise 2.0" efforts to bring the types of applications in the "web 2.0" world into the enterprise. How successful those efforts have been is still an open question -- but companies keep on looking for such solutions to improve internal communications. Two stories today suggest exactly how that's happening. Business Week has a story about how Nissan is trying to build an internal "MySpace" to get employees more connected with each other and make the flow of information and the sharing of ideas more useful. Meanwhile, Sun, who has been trying to push more workers to telecommute for years, is now trying to build its own Second Life-type virtual world for employees from around the world to interact as if they were in an office together. While it's worth noting both of these experiments as clearly taking a consumer internet service and moving it into the enterprise, there's still a huge question of how useful either service will be. They both make nice stories for the press, but that doesn't mean either will get enough adoption to really be useful. Lots of companies have had internal intranet-type collaboration services in the past that don't get any use. Repainting the same thing with the broad 2.0 brush won't automatically make them useful.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..