It’s because there are a lot of people out there who think that the new communications tools are revolutionising our lives in wonderful ways. There are also a lot of people who feel disturbed, excluded, threatened and even abused by the process. This is not the old Geek versus Dinosaur argument. This is a much more interesting debate about how human beings fit into media change.
Ben Hammersley from Wired UK fired everyone up by scorning the moaning minnies who complain about ‘information overload’. “Stop reading stuff!” said Ben. You don’t ban alcohol because of alcoholics, so learn to use media in moderation.
But David ‘Information Is Beautiful’ McCandless was much less sanguine. When he asked the audience on a show of hands, about half felt they were drowing in data, despite being a generally media-savvy, intelligent bunch of people.
David designs wonderful ways of visualising information but he thinks there is simply too much for us to take in. His key insight is that we should stop trying for universal comprehension:
“The really revolutionary things is that information is becoming fluid. Where we could say for sure that we knew things, now we have constant uncertainty. Perhaps in the future, the mature response to this is to admit not knowing.”
But will this new way of thinking about the world change us as human beings? Cynthia O’Murchu does investigative journalism and data visualisation at the FT, so she’s no slouch on bringing brains and software together. But she questioned whether we will physically/neurologically be able to keep up with all this info-flow.
And even Matt Locke who brings mainstream broadcasting together with social media at Channel 4 raised a darker prospect. Will we look back in 50 years and wonder where it all went? It will be impossible to capture all this new media data, so will we lose our record of the world?
Certainly, some members of the audience were palpably angry about their personal experience of much social media. They feel their privacy has been abused, their lives taken over, their intelligence insulted. One person got a round of applause for declaring how she was finally living a Facebook-free life and how liberated she felt.
Another journalist pointed out the business model crisis in news. While someone else made the astute point that those who abuse their power may find it easier to hide in a world of data super-abundance. Lots of information does not inevitably lead to increased oversight.
However, a more positive vision did emerge. Cynthia believes that media literacy will evolve, although we need to invest in basic skills at an educational level.
Matt Locke said that those who add value to communications will thrive. The journalist can come to truth WITH the citizen. The world was always ‘grey’, it’s just the old media who pretended we could see things in black and white. We will learn to love and deal with the new communication spaces.
Ben Hammersley asserted that ‘most of the media you consume is produced by your mates’ but that the consumption of high quality media is also increasing. Our social networks may be humming with trivia but we also buy the Economist, FT and other ‘difficult’ journalism in increasing volume.
As readers of this blog know, I share that optimism. On balance I welcome the incredible opportunities rather than fear the inevitable downsides. I am less content with what went before, so I welcome the chance for change.
However, I am concerned about the digital divide. Not just the crude technological/social economic divide. I think that is essentially a technical/political issue about investing in education and universal access. We should care about that, but it shouldn’t stop us embracing new communications technologies.
No, I am more concerned about whether we have the curators to help shape these information flows and whether those people or organisations that do the filtering and connecting are informed by some kind of ethical value system. Data is not neutral. Information is beautiful but it is also political. Networks are powerful and so they also need to be transparent and acountable.
Step forward the networked journalist, your digital public sphere needs you.
[The panel discussion was sponsored by MediaCSR Forum which works on behalf of media companies to promote media literacy.]
Thanks so much for posting this excellent account of the proceedings.
What left me profoundly disappointed was Ben Hammersley’s patronising attitude towards the audience; even his body language reflected this. I like Hammersley’s work, and like many others I was there because he was announced, but he certainly missed the target by assuming that anyone who thinks there is such thing as “information overload” is just one more of the “moaning minnies.”
I understand he might have said that in the context of Cynthia O’Murchu’s complaint of ‘retweets’, but it still needs to be said that there are a lot of intelligent, professional, digital media literate, information savvy professionals out there (with PhDs in Librarianship, Archive or Information Science/Studies, let alone Journalism or long careers there), people who know what “curation” means because they practice it everyday, that still feel overwhelmed by the amount of data out there.
Apart from a discussion of the technological divide and its effects, what I missed from the debate was 1) an agreed coherent definition of “media” — many of us thought the debate would be about journalism, but then we ended up talking about how to set your privacy settings on Facebook– 2)the consideration that information is not only mere input, that people who should just ‘stop reading’ are not just supposed to be passive receivers, but active ones: precisely, the paradigm shift of the last 20 years at least has been that it’s only about the panelists telling us something and we receiving it, (or choosing not to) but that if it concerns us, we will want to do something about it. Importantly, sometimes this “do something about it” is part of our job descriptions.
The multiplication of communicative channels has increased exponentially. This is a good thing. The fact this channels are not only two-way but multiple-way is essential, and this was either ignored or deleted out of the equation.
You say: “Data is not neutral. Information is beautiful but it is also political,” and you could not be more right. Media literacy means understanding this (and also knowing what ‘metadata’ is, and what copyright laws apply, what is a RT’s function, what is the meaning of ‘virality’, how to reply to in an email thread properly, etc.)
If I personally was angry at what Hammersley said was not because I am an anti-social media or anti-Web 2.0 ‘moaning minnie’ (on the contrary), but because he sort of implied that anyone saying “yes, there is a lot of information out there; I personally find it overwhelming” is a luddite and a conservative nostalgic for Thatcherism and the Berlin Wall.
Hammersley may think we can only choose not to read anymore. On the contrary: our responsibility is huge: we can’t simply switch off the TV now; we are doing something about it. And that means a lot of work. And you may love your work, but who hasn’t ever complained about it at least once, whatever it is?
Apologies for the typos and sketchy syntax up there. I wish I could edit my comment! Thanks.
Everyone talking at the panel came had an old media mentality: TV broadcasting, a (mainly) print magazine, a new book, newspapers. They weren’t there because they wanted to. They were there because they had to. They were sponsored to do it.
If further proof is needed they are good at talking stuff but not at doing it, just look at this comments section. Digital media literacy, ‘networked journalism’ calls for following-up events. But no. They did their job, they came, they spoke, they drank, they left.
Why aren’t they here engaging? Because they live in an old media mentality.
Hi Jessica,
Thanks for your comment. I am not sure what lies behind your comment but it’s an odd one. Firstly, the panelists were not sponsored. Secondly, ‘They did their job, they came, they spoke, they drank, they left.’ Well that is what they were asked to do. They also spent at least an hour afterwards ‘engaging’ with people.
I am not sure what ‘old media’ means anymore. It’s a rather old-fashioned distinction to make. And these four were deliberately chosen because they represent how you can’t make that false distinction any more. They all four work in print, online, broadcast etc all the time. They are also chosen because they are rather ‘good at it’. Have you actually seen their work at all?
I don’t understand you point about a follow up event either. That’s the point of Polis. It goes on. And on. We’ve done stuff in the past and will do more in the future. We look forward to engaging with you again then,
cheers
Charlie
Hello Charlie,
Thanks very much indeed for your kind reply. I did not mean to say they are not good at what they do (they are).
I am glad this event took place, and I thank Polis and the sponsors for making it possible. I did not mean to criticise Polis or LSE in the slightest: just the panelists this particular time.
By ‘follow-up’ I meant they could have replied to your post here or elsewhere. You are right, “old media” does not mean much. I suppose I meant that unidirectional tradition of delivering your speech in real time in a specific place, feeling happy about yourself and then leaving. On the other hand it’s really nice you yourself did reply. It’s appreciated and it makes a real difference.
As a member of the audience I may just be still a little bit upset that this was all Matt Locke had to say about the event.
Cheers.