Interactive media invite change
I was arguing with another blogger over the weekend over the best way to make a difference as a writer, and it finally occurred to me that that writing and journalism are too timid for the times, and out of step with the technolgy. Writing is about suggesting ideas. Good ideas are a useful but that judgment is in the mind of readers and they come to most stories with a set of preconceptions. They already have some predisposition toward the facts and when they read it is to see whether the writer has or has not conformed to those preconceptions. Everyone does this. At least so I believe based on 53 years of life experience including 16 years as a newspaper journalist. But I formed this bias, if you will about how people process information, back when I was a 20-year-old Navy journalist, reading a nightly newscast aboard a warship in the Pacific. I used to walk down the passageway from the closed circuit TV studio where I did my thing and hear from my crewmates playing cards on the mess decks. That was during the 1970s. During the 1980s I wrote columns for a now defunct weekly in Arcata, California. It was a small town of about 15,000 and I believe I earned $10 or $15 a week. But for me, as a small business owner, it was about the exposure. And I recall one day in particular when one of my townsfolk stopped to compliment me on something I had written and I made the error of asking them what — and they told me something 180 degrees to the opposite of what I had intended to convey. Whatever they had read had been the opposite of what I meant.
So now we have interactive media available and I think that changes everything. Suddenly the communicator has the ability to request or provoke an action. That is the fundamental difference. So far writers and broadcasters have focused on the ease of distribution. Yes it is easier to send digital copies. And yes this has completely upended the economics of publishing. That economic disruption has complicated the task of journalism. It used to be we could imagine that somewhere, somehow, the news industry would cover the important topics of the day out of the profits they enjoyed through advertising. And both print and broadcast news used to be extremely profitable. So there probably was sufficient wealth to insure a level of scrutiny from the press overall sufficient to play the watchdog role that journalists imagine to be theirs. Nowadays I think every aspect of that supposition is wrong. As the profit goes out of the newsgathering industry there is an inexorable pressure to create content that draws readers and advertising. Pay-per-click advertising demands “good” news because there is nothing that can be sold alongside a keyword like “genocide” (I explored this topic previously in a posting titled Hot Tubs vs. Hot Zones.)
But interactive media change the whole process of communication in a way that we are only beginning to understand because it is so new. We can invite activity. If you agree, vote this article higher. If you agree, write your elected or corporate official. If you agree, join the movement in some way appropriate to your circumstances. The communicator no longer need be merely the guardian angel (or devil) whispering in your ear. They become the organizer or inciter of activity. The writer becomes a rabble rouser. Otherwise they leave the most powerful capability of new media unused, and that is the ability to use the network to coordinate the actions of like minded people.
Why did I wake up this morning in this “storm the Bastille” frame of mind? It has to do with that argument I mentioned. The other party was interested in tracking down some supposedly misleading information about global warming. Why bother is my thought? I can no greater waste of time than trying to change the minds of people whose predispositions make them more likely to sneer than to smile at my ideas. If I wanted to do something about global warming, I would plant a tree. If I wanted to do something in a big way about global warming I would start a group of people who plant trees. I would share information about which trees have the best carbon-dioxide conversion rates. And what about city dwellers? Are there potted plants that could decorate an office or apartment and enlist more folks in the effort?
It all comes down to how change occurs. During most of the last 15 years I have covered Silicon Valley where change is an industrial process. The main take away is the power of small teams of dedicated and focused individuals. That’s what a startup company is — a few people with a laserlike focus on making something happen.
That same method would work just as well for the sort of change that gets lumped under the rubric of social progress. If you want to change some part of the human experience, create a web page to lay out what you stand for and find the people who agree. Make it easy for them to join you. Or you join them. Do something. Actions speak louder than words. Interactive media finally connect the two. So why fight the losing battle to change minds when there are minds that already agree with you and are just waiting for something purposeful to do?
Postscript: the artwork is from DesignCanChange.org
8 users commented in " What then is to be done: build or berate? "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackHi Tom,
I remember – and still read occasionally – your “Seems To Me” columns. Especially since I’ve been researching back issues for a book.
And I well know how people can extract bizarre interpretations from one’s writing. Sometimes it seems they think you mean anything and everything but what you intended to say.
Glad you’re still out there writing.
Kevin
Isn’t that proof positive that it’s a small world. I had forgotten the name of that column though of course I remember the Arcata Union and Judy Hodgson who offered me that column after I sent her a letter about the pampas grass infestation. Thanks for the reminder. And good luck with the book. Tom
I still think we need journalism.
> Why bother is my thought?
I take it you didn’t read Steve Kirsch’s piece. “In short, at the rate things are going, there is more than a 5% chance that human beings might be extinct (or nearly extinct) in less than 100 years from now. The current best estimate is that it will take somewhat longer than that.”
Got kids?
(without political will, all we have is individual action. It won’t take us where we need to go.)
I did scan Kirsch’s piece (just now). I am not saying GW isn’t important or real or worrisome or worth action. But what action? My preference is direct action as in plant a tree, reduce my personal use of energy. I have a limited interest in changing other people’s behaviors. Too hard. And in general I think the world is headed toward your belief.
Alex Steffen:
(here)
“”The very idea that changing our own lives into models of sustainability will transform the world is wrongheaded — in part because it is almost impossible to do without great wealth or great sacrifice, in part because even when we do it, it encourages us to believe that problems which demand systemic solutions can be fixed by personal virtue.
“At its worst, making saving the world a personal responsibility drives green posturing that’s both meaningless and annoying. But even at it’s best — even when we focus on taking the personal actions that are both actually within our power and at least somewhat effective — it is woefully insufficient. As Bill Rees (the inventor of the ecological footprint measurement) says, “We’re all on the same ship and what we do in our individual cabins is of almost no consequence in terms of the direction the ship is going.”
To effect systemic change you need political will. To get political will you need an informed citizenry. To build an informed citizenry you can’t just tell them “here’s what’s true”, you need to help them eject what *isn’t* true - you need to explain that half of what you fed them in the last 20 years was disinformation.
(I don’t think you understand just how ignorant and misinformed the public still is, on the state of the science - I bet even in SF. Try striking up a few random conversations & you’ll see.)
> I did scan Kirsch’s piece
Scan?
If print doesn’t speak to you, please watch John Doerr’s talk. You cover business, Doerr funds it; you ought to be able to relate to him.
> My preference is direct action as in plant a tree, reduce my personal use of energy. I have a limited interest in changing other people’s behaviors. Too hard.
Sometimes the things that need to be done *are* hard. Often they aren’t what we’d prefer them to be. Believe me, I know, and I sympathize.
but that doesn’t let us off the hook.
Anna
In this case my own rule — do not try to change people’s behaviors or even their opinions — requires me to say that you may be right and exhortation is necessary and perhaps principally necessary to bring about the changes to ameliorate global warming.
I do continue to suspect that other forces will be more powerful than changing minds. Prices, for instance. As gasoline rise up that prompts many behavior changes that has nothing to do with belief.
But stick to your guns and to your approach because, as I must admit, you could be entirely correct.
Tom
> In this case my own rule — do not try to change people’s behaviors or even their opinions
What does your rule say about providing people with the info they need, in order to make an informed decision?
> other forces will be more powerful than changing minds. Prices, for instance.
Sadly, no, not enough. How does laissez faire incorporate greenhouse gas emissions into prices? Plus the lag time is huge - we’ve still got as much temp rise in the pipeline as we’ve experienced in the last 100+ years. This isn’t “turn on a dime” stuff AT ALL.
and initially, those who suffer will be far away, and we’ve already shown our capacity for courage in the face of pain felt by strangers.
We need Journalism That Matters. On this issue, we haven’t had it.
Leave A Reply