Of Blogging and Indymedia and gov't repression
Interesting new book out- We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People for the People
by Dan Gillmor . I'm posting a review below. I haven't read it yet, but I trust it will mention the alternative news source, Indymedia. Gillmor is quoted in the review below as saying, "If today's Big Media is a dinosaur," he writes, "it won't die off quietly. It will, with the government's help, try to control new media, rather than see its business models eroded by it."
I believe that the Quebec Summit of 2001 provides one such example of the kind of measures they are willing to take. I have long suspected that our Indymedia outlet, CMAQ, was appropriated or "influenced" by the Canadian gov't. during the Quebec summit. We indyjournalists in Quebec City found ourselves posting articles to our local version of Indymedia, CMAQ, which became subject to lengthy delays or never appeared on the site at all. This is not the way Indymedia works- it's supposed to be uncensored. When we weren't facing disappearing articles, the site was down at critical times throughout the Summit. I ended up reposting my articles to indymedia sites based in Turkey and elsewhere- where I encountered no such difficulties. It seems the Canadian gov't had provided grants to rent the space in which the indymedia office was located - a conflict of interest. The offices themselves were constantly subject to teargas, which resulted in restrictions for journalists entering and leaving the premises, allegedly due to contamination concerns. I'm sorry to sound paranoid, but there were also several people posing as journalists at CMAQ whom I had valid reason to suspect were CIA or CSIS plants. The indymedia lobby was eventually used as a makeshift hospital after the first aid centre down the road was attacked by the riot police and closed down. The police subsequently attacked the Indymedia building and entered, using extreme force and teargas to apprehend several people within. The Quebec version of Indymedia died off shortly thereafter, I believe citing a lack of committed individuals and funds. It is evident from all of this that a certain degree of distance from the gov't in terms of funding must be maintained to establish credibility.
My account of the above events and video link are at CMAQatak or go to the full report menu- The Quebec Summit... It Was a Gas, Then a Disappearing Act.
A government attack on alternative media of an even more serious nature can be seen on the main indymedia.org site- USA: INDYMEDIA & REPRESSION - US government: "We seize - you can't complain"
12 Nov 2004 07:47 GMT - regarding the US seizure of two hard drives that hosted more than 20 Indymedia websites.
Book Review-
Simon Waldman enjoys a timely account of the new forms of grassroots journalism
All the news that's fit to blog
We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People for the People
by Dan Gillmor
O'Reilly 299pp £17.50 / Reviewed by Simon Waldman
When this book was in its earliest stages, the author, a respected Silicon Valley journalist, posted an initial outline on his weblog, asking for comments. He was besieged with emails offering suggestions and advice. More, in fact, than he could handle. Later, he posted draft chapters as they were finished. One reader, the publisher of a small newspaper in upstate New York, whom he had never met, sent back a draft chapter dripping with digital red ink, commenting: "The time is right; the subject is right. But your book deserves to be better than this."
For most journalists or authors the idea of putting yourself through this process, while trying to get a book out, seems about as smart as standing on a street corner with a sign round your neck saying: "Please poke me in the eye."
For Gillmor, however, it is a proof of his underlying thesis. Throughout this book he argues that the growth of internet and related technologies is changing the balance of power between journalists and their readers; you can succeed in the coming decades only by acknowledging that shift in power and changing your behaviour accordingly. "Big media . . . treated the news as a lecture. We told you what the news was. You bought it, or you didn't. You might write us a letter; we might print it . . . it was a world that bred complacency and arrogance on our part. It was a gravy train while it lasted, but it was unsustainable.
"Tomorrow's news reporting and production will be more of a conversation or a seminar. The lines will blur between producers and consumers, changing the role of both in ways we're only beginning to grasp. The communication network itself will be a medium for everyone's voice, not just the few who can afford to buy multimillion-dollar printing presses, launch satellites, or win the government's permission to squat on the public airways."
This thesis in itself is neither new nor original. What is new, and what makes this the right book at the right time, is that a huge amount has happened particularly over the past three years to prove it true. And this is the first time someone has put it all down in one place.
He tells us of OhMyNews.com in South Korea, which has 15,000 "citizen reporters" filing news and comment; and of wikipedia, the online encyclopedia where anyone can write or edit an article, which now has more than one million articles in more than 100 languages.
He tells us about bloggers who have bigger audiences than many newspapers, and who have become just as influential as any specialist journalist in their sector. How Russ Kirk of the alternative news site The Memory Hole used the Freedom of Information Act to get photos of dead US soldiers being brought back from Iraq in flag-draped caskets into the public domain; and how bloggers claimed the scalp of Trent Lott, the majority leader in the US Senate, after he appeared to wax nostalgic for a racist past at a fellow senator's birthday dinner.
Gillmor tells of his own experience as a columnist on the San Jose Mercury, starting to write a blog and dealing with comments and criticisms from his readers, who, he claims, "have made me a better journalist, because they find my mistakes, tell me what I'm missing and help me understand nuances". Hence his willingness to go through the rather bruising experience that was mentioned above.
The audience, claims Gillmor, is in fact "the former audience". They are no longer the passive masses; they have the tools to challenge traditional media and create media for themselves. And when they just want to consume, they have so much more choice of what to consume.
The other party whose lives are changed by all this is those who are written about, "the news-makers", particularly politicians and corporations that can no longer control information about themselves as they might have done before, because "in the emerging world of internet-enabled communications, obfuscation and lies will work even less than before".
Gillmor's ultimate hope is that the result is going to be better for everyone. Journalism, politics and major corporations will all engage with this former audience in new ways to become more transparent and trusted.
His fear, however, is that this won't happen, and based on the examples he gives, the future is more likely to live up to his fears than his hopes. "If today's Big Media is a dinosaur," he writes, "it won't die off quietly. It will, with the government's help, try to control new media, rather than see its business models eroded by it."
Not everything described applies to the UK political bloggers, for example, have failed to make the same splash in Britain, partly, one suspects, because the UK press is opinionated enough, but the trends are still relevant.
Exactly how newspapers and other organisations should evolve to deal with these phenomena is left unanswered. That is actually quite welcome. What's happening is so significant, so complex and so unfinished that simple three-point plans are neither welcome nor useful. But anyone plotting the future for a media organisation or any organisation that deals with the media — would be foolish to do so without first reading Gillmor's book.
The Guardian Weekly 2004-11-26, page 25
by Dan Gillmor . I'm posting a review below. I haven't read it yet, but I trust it will mention the alternative news source, Indymedia. Gillmor is quoted in the review below as saying, "If today's Big Media is a dinosaur," he writes, "it won't die off quietly. It will, with the government's help, try to control new media, rather than see its business models eroded by it."
I believe that the Quebec Summit of 2001 provides one such example of the kind of measures they are willing to take. I have long suspected that our Indymedia outlet, CMAQ, was appropriated or "influenced" by the Canadian gov't. during the Quebec summit. We indyjournalists in Quebec City found ourselves posting articles to our local version of Indymedia, CMAQ, which became subject to lengthy delays or never appeared on the site at all. This is not the way Indymedia works- it's supposed to be uncensored. When we weren't facing disappearing articles, the site was down at critical times throughout the Summit. I ended up reposting my articles to indymedia sites based in Turkey and elsewhere- where I encountered no such difficulties. It seems the Canadian gov't had provided grants to rent the space in which the indymedia office was located - a conflict of interest. The offices themselves were constantly subject to teargas, which resulted in restrictions for journalists entering and leaving the premises, allegedly due to contamination concerns. I'm sorry to sound paranoid, but there were also several people posing as journalists at CMAQ whom I had valid reason to suspect were CIA or CSIS plants. The indymedia lobby was eventually used as a makeshift hospital after the first aid centre down the road was attacked by the riot police and closed down. The police subsequently attacked the Indymedia building and entered, using extreme force and teargas to apprehend several people within. The Quebec version of Indymedia died off shortly thereafter, I believe citing a lack of committed individuals and funds. It is evident from all of this that a certain degree of distance from the gov't in terms of funding must be maintained to establish credibility.
My account of the above events and video link are at CMAQatak or go to the full report menu- The Quebec Summit... It Was a Gas, Then a Disappearing Act.
A government attack on alternative media of an even more serious nature can be seen on the main indymedia.org site- USA: INDYMEDIA & REPRESSION - US government: "We seize - you can't complain"
12 Nov 2004 07:47 GMT - regarding the US seizure of two hard drives that hosted more than 20 Indymedia websites.
Book Review-
Simon Waldman enjoys a timely account of the new forms of grassroots journalism
All the news that's fit to blog
We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People for the People
by Dan Gillmor
O'Reilly 299pp £17.50 / Reviewed by Simon Waldman
When this book was in its earliest stages, the author, a respected Silicon Valley journalist, posted an initial outline on his weblog, asking for comments. He was besieged with emails offering suggestions and advice. More, in fact, than he could handle. Later, he posted draft chapters as they were finished. One reader, the publisher of a small newspaper in upstate New York, whom he had never met, sent back a draft chapter dripping with digital red ink, commenting: "The time is right; the subject is right. But your book deserves to be better than this."
For most journalists or authors the idea of putting yourself through this process, while trying to get a book out, seems about as smart as standing on a street corner with a sign round your neck saying: "Please poke me in the eye."
For Gillmor, however, it is a proof of his underlying thesis. Throughout this book he argues that the growth of internet and related technologies is changing the balance of power between journalists and their readers; you can succeed in the coming decades only by acknowledging that shift in power and changing your behaviour accordingly. "Big media . . . treated the news as a lecture. We told you what the news was. You bought it, or you didn't. You might write us a letter; we might print it . . . it was a world that bred complacency and arrogance on our part. It was a gravy train while it lasted, but it was unsustainable.
"Tomorrow's news reporting and production will be more of a conversation or a seminar. The lines will blur between producers and consumers, changing the role of both in ways we're only beginning to grasp. The communication network itself will be a medium for everyone's voice, not just the few who can afford to buy multimillion-dollar printing presses, launch satellites, or win the government's permission to squat on the public airways."
This thesis in itself is neither new nor original. What is new, and what makes this the right book at the right time, is that a huge amount has happened particularly over the past three years to prove it true. And this is the first time someone has put it all down in one place.
He tells us of OhMyNews.com in South Korea, which has 15,000 "citizen reporters" filing news and comment; and of wikipedia, the online encyclopedia where anyone can write or edit an article, which now has more than one million articles in more than 100 languages.
He tells us about bloggers who have bigger audiences than many newspapers, and who have become just as influential as any specialist journalist in their sector. How Russ Kirk of the alternative news site The Memory Hole used the Freedom of Information Act to get photos of dead US soldiers being brought back from Iraq in flag-draped caskets into the public domain; and how bloggers claimed the scalp of Trent Lott, the majority leader in the US Senate, after he appeared to wax nostalgic for a racist past at a fellow senator's birthday dinner.
Gillmor tells of his own experience as a columnist on the San Jose Mercury, starting to write a blog and dealing with comments and criticisms from his readers, who, he claims, "have made me a better journalist, because they find my mistakes, tell me what I'm missing and help me understand nuances". Hence his willingness to go through the rather bruising experience that was mentioned above.
The audience, claims Gillmor, is in fact "the former audience". They are no longer the passive masses; they have the tools to challenge traditional media and create media for themselves. And when they just want to consume, they have so much more choice of what to consume.
The other party whose lives are changed by all this is those who are written about, "the news-makers", particularly politicians and corporations that can no longer control information about themselves as they might have done before, because "in the emerging world of internet-enabled communications, obfuscation and lies will work even less than before".
Gillmor's ultimate hope is that the result is going to be better for everyone. Journalism, politics and major corporations will all engage with this former audience in new ways to become more transparent and trusted.
His fear, however, is that this won't happen, and based on the examples he gives, the future is more likely to live up to his fears than his hopes. "If today's Big Media is a dinosaur," he writes, "it won't die off quietly. It will, with the government's help, try to control new media, rather than see its business models eroded by it."
Not everything described applies to the UK political bloggers, for example, have failed to make the same splash in Britain, partly, one suspects, because the UK press is opinionated enough, but the trends are still relevant.
Exactly how newspapers and other organisations should evolve to deal with these phenomena is left unanswered. That is actually quite welcome. What's happening is so significant, so complex and so unfinished that simple three-point plans are neither welcome nor useful. But anyone plotting the future for a media organisation or any organisation that deals with the media — would be foolish to do so without first reading Gillmor's book.
The Guardian Weekly 2004-11-26, page 25
posted by Dawn One at 1:25 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home