Ease of publishing online

Related drivers

What are the implications?

Power shifts from organisations to individuals as the media moves away from a ‘broadcast’ model, where a central organisation publishes to a large audience, towards a ‘conversational’ model, where a large number of smaller organisations and individuals are all publishing and talking to each other.
A narrowing gap between ‘professionals’ and ‘amateurs’
Previously those who controlled publishing channels acted as a filter, democratisation of media shifts the responsibility to filter on to the individual.
New ways of organising online information develop as the plethora of information available online is increasingly hard to negotiate.
As traditional trust in institutions and experts declines, the public are able to seek out information from peers.
Digital exclusion means that some voices are not heard and risks a bias of media in favour of those who are IT literate and able to access the Internet.
A risk of declining trust in organisations, as people access all the information they need online, leads to the increased importance of demonstrating accountability and transparency through providing information online.
More collaborative working as ‘wikis’ develop – webpages that organisations and individuals edit collaboratively.

Moving forward

Democratisation of the media offers new opportunities for VCOs to get their voice heard.

What role does your website play in your marketing and campaigning? Do you link with other organisation’s websites (and vice versa) as a way of reaching new audiences?
Can you use your website to quickly develop a campaign and mobilise people?
Can you alert the local or national media to your online campaign and get greater exposure?

There is also an expectation of two way conversations.

Can you use this dialogue to add a human voice to your communications and increase the legitimacy of your campaigning?

Although democratisation of the media has the potential to generate a wider range of views and include more people, there is a risk that those who are not IT literate or do not have access to the internet may be left behind. Others may struggle as the sheer number of voices means that not all can be heard.

How can you ensure your organsation’s voice is heard amongst a variety of voices who may be able to shout louder than yours?
What is your role in listening to marginalised individuals and communities, and ensuring that their voice is heard? Should this be done through your organisation or can you facilitate participative opportunities, where people can directly contribute their voice?

Want to know more?

Blogs vie with news for eyeballs

Published by: BBC website

Date: 2005

Format: Web

What is it? An article looking at the role of blogs in news journalism.

How useful is this? This short article provides a quick overview of the role of blogs following the announcement by the search engine Yahoo that it will include blogs as well as traditional news sources in its news search system. It briefly outlines the role of citizen journalists and user-generated content and gives examples of how blogs have been used, for example, in coverage of Hurricane Katrina. It uses expert opinion to consider the role of blogs and the role they may play in news coverage in the future.

Other comments:

citizen journalism: what to do with all that stuff?!

Published by: cybersoc.com – the personal blog of Robin Hamman, a Senior Broadcast Journalist/Producer at the BBC

Date: 2005

Format: Web

What is it? A blog entry set out as a starting point for looking at citizen journalism.

How useful is this? This blog talks about how following high profile events such as the London bombings, the BBC received large numbers of images direct from viewers. It highlights some of the difficulties associated with citizen journalism including: data processing for broadcasters; ethical and safety implications of citizen journalists; and concerns from some journalists that they will become redundant. It includes links and details of further information.

Other comments:

Have you got news for us?

Published by: The Guardian – a left of centre newspaper

Date: 2005

Format: Web

What is it? An article exploring the rise of user-generated content in the media and its advantages and disadvantages.

How useful is this? This article follows high profile campaigns by traditional media outlets to buy material produced by the public. It finds that this is driven not only by a search for new material but by a drive to increase brand loyalty and create a greater sense of community. Using examples, it highlights issues such as: copyright and payment; authenticity; and safety. It explores the tensions between traditional media and user generated content, looking at the need for a change of mindset by media outlets and how and whether they can coexist.

Other comments:

Last updated at 16:04 Mon 10/Aug/09.

Recent comments

Subscribe to this topic by RSS

Author	Comment
over 2 years ago Megan Third Sector Foresight	Pete alerted me to this post from Peter Franklin on the Conservative Home blog which talks about the blogs that influence those in Westminster. The oldest and most influential bloggers are still independent individuals (he cites Guido Fawkes, Iain Dale and Conservative Home). However, he sees the mainstream press reasserting its previous dominance as many journalists get the hang of writing good blogs, which are becoming increasingly influential (eg Comment Central from Danny Finkelstein and colleagues at the Times and the Spectator’s Coffee House blog)
about 1 year ago Dhara	Written as Policy Officer at NCVO I just read an extract from a speech by Hazel Blears MP, on ‘Tackling Disengagement’ in it, she infers that political blogging fuels cynicism and leads to disengagement. I think its particularly pertinent given she gave this speech on the 5th November, the day after Barrack Obama was elected and declared President–elect of the USA. Obama’s campaign and eventual victory has been historic for a number of reasons- not least because of the way he was able to mobilize and organise from the grassroots up. This involved the phenomenal use of information and communications technology, and the blogosphere was another arena in which the debates about the US 2008 election. This resonates with many of the findings from the Power Inquiry – people do want to get involved, just not necessarily in formal politics. I think that blogging is another way in which people can and do get involved in the world around them, their communities and wider civil society. Over the weekend there were many articles and op-eds on this same subject: here here and here to link to a few. Hazel Blears has also responded to some of this criticism via the comments on her own blog
about 1 year ago Kathryn Third Sector Foresight	Is new technology undermining the authorial voice and its position of authority? Is media becoming truly democratised? Let’s look at this in the light of a project which exemplifies the latest developments in technology and how works are created. Jules Peck and Robert Phillips are working on what they call their online Wiki book: Citizen Renaissance. A great example of many of the features talked about in this driver: collaborative working, online information as well as the role of the ‘crowd’ in creating content. In their own words, Jules and Robert are using this format of creating their book because they ‘don’t have all the answers’. This exemplifies the blurring of authority and its location that new media and new ways of publishing stir up. When a work is opened to the wisdom of crowds, there is a shift in the relationship between received authoritative voice and recipient. This embraces the ethos of web 2.0 – collaboration and interaction. Fashion vs function? However, I think it’s uncertain to what extent it will encroach on more traditional ways of creating a work. There are those such as Encyclopaedia Britannica who feel that enabling a purely democratic process in the way that Wikipedia does, isn’t necessarily going to lead to a more accurate product. They have decided to embrace the power of collaboration but retain ultimate authority: "We are not abdicating our responsibility as publishers or burying it under the now-fashionable 'wisdom of the crowds'," wrote Jorge Cauz in his blog. "We believe that the creation and documentation of knowledge is a collaborative process but not a democratic one," Cauz noted, explaining further that "these experts would sit alongside the encyclopaedia entries and the official material would carry a 'Britannica Checked' stamp, to distinguish it from the user-generated content." It seems that Citizen Renaissance is following a similar model: you can submit your views on the book as a whole or at the bottom of each page, but Peck and Phillips retain overall control. People whose views make the final cut and which shape the book will be credited but ultimately it will be seen as a Peck and Phillips product. This has important implications for any brand; ultimately any product has a name which is the person or organisation most associated with it and as such will be held responsible for that product in the minds of the public. It looks like there is a growing enthusiasm for using online collaboration (see this Governmental wiki) but I don’t think we are yet seeing mass democratisation. Those whose name will be appended to a creation are retaining overall authority; people can interact and contribute but they are moderated. So what does this mean, for the VCS? Would you want to be seen to be more open? Or is it more important for you to be a definitive source of authority on a subject? It raises similar issues to those relating to online forums – do you operate any level of control over who contributes, or what they say? And this is without even dabbling in the content of the book itself! It reinvisions society, looking at what shaping the future is and how it could see itself. Writing the book in the way they are, is perhaps the only way that this topic can be written about. After all, you can’t write about the future using ways of old!

Author

Comment

over 2 years ago

Megan

Third Sector Foresight

Pete alerted me to this post from Peter Franklin on the Conservative Home blog which talks about the blogs that influence those in Westminster. The oldest and most influential bloggers are still independent individuals (he cites Guido Fawkes, Iain Dale and Conservative Home). However, he sees the mainstream press reasserting its previous dominance as many journalists get the hang of writing good blogs, which are becoming increasingly influential (eg Comment Central from Danny Finkelstein and colleagues at the Times and the Spectator’s Coffee House blog)

about 1 year ago

Dhara

Written as Policy Officer at NCVO

I just read an extract from a speech by Hazel Blears MP, on ‘Tackling Disengagement’ in it, she infers that political blogging fuels cynicism and leads to disengagement.

I think its particularly pertinent given she gave this speech on the 5th November, the day after Barrack Obama was elected and declared President–elect of the USA. Obama’s campaign and eventual victory has been historic for a number of reasons- not least because of the way he was able to mobilize and organise from the grassroots up. This involved the phenomenal use of information and communications technology, and the blogosphere was another arena in which the debates about the US 2008 election.

This resonates with many of the findings from the Power Inquiry – people do want to get involved, just not necessarily in formal politics. I think that blogging is another way in which people can and do get involved in the world around them, their communities and wider civil society.

Over the weekend there were many articles and op-eds on this same subject: here here and here to link to a few.

Hazel Blears has also responded to some of this criticism via the comments on her own blog

about 1 year ago

Kathryn

Third Sector Foresight

Is new technology undermining the authorial voice and its position of authority? Is media becoming truly democratised? Let’s look at this in the light of a project which exemplifies the latest developments in technology and how works are created.

Jules Peck and Robert Phillips are working on what they call their online Wiki book: *Citizen Renaissance*. A great example of many of the features talked about in this driver: collaborative working, online information as well as the role of the ‘crowd’ in creating content.

In their own words, Jules and Robert are using this format of creating their book because they ‘don’t have all the answers’. This exemplifies the blurring of authority and its location that new media and new ways of publishing stir up. When a work is opened to the wisdom of crowds, there is a shift in the relationship between received authoritative voice and recipient. This embraces the ethos of web 2.0 – collaboration and interaction.

Fashion vs function?

However, I think it’s uncertain to what extent it will encroach on more traditional ways of creating a work. There are those such as Encyclopaedia Britannica who feel that enabling a purely democratic process in the way that Wikipedia does, isn’t necessarily going to lead to a more accurate product. They have decided to embrace the power of collaboration but retain ultimate authority:

"We are not abdicating our responsibility as publishers or burying it under the now-fashionable 'wisdom of the crowds'," wrote Jorge Cauz in his blog. "We believe that the creation and documentation of knowledge is a collaborative process but not a democratic one," Cauz noted, explaining further that "these experts would sit alongside the encyclopaedia entries and the official material would carry a 'Britannica Checked' stamp, to distinguish it from the user-generated content."

It seems that Citizen Renaissance is following a similar model: you can submit your views on the book as a whole or at the bottom of each page, but Peck and Phillips retain overall control. People whose views make the final cut and which shape the book will be credited but ultimately it will be seen as a Peck and Phillips product.

This has important implications for any brand; ultimately any product has a name which is the person or organisation most associated with it and as such will be held responsible for that product in the minds of the public. It looks like there is a growing enthusiasm for using online collaboration (see this Governmental wiki) but I don’t think we are yet seeing mass democratisation. Those whose name will be appended to a creation are retaining overall authority; people can interact and contribute but they are moderated.

So what does this mean, for the VCS? Would you want to be seen to be more open? Or is it more important for you to be a definitive source of authority on a subject? It raises similar issues to those relating to online forums – do you operate any level of control over who contributes, or what they say?

And this is without even dabbling in the content of the book itself! It reinvisions society, looking at what shaping the future is and how it could see itself. Writing the book in the way they are, is perhaps the only way that this topic can be written about.

After all, you can’t write about the future using ways of old!

Join the discussion!

How will this affect your organisation? Have you considered it during your strategic planning? Can you share any interesting relevant links?