The New Media Discussion

[Wolfy]

So some of you know about the issue some of us have with new media groups such as the Nevada New Media thing, and some of us have already weighed in on it. The issue is fairly simple to me. If your goal is to coalesce a movement around new media, social media and online communities in nevada, wouldn't you start here in this forum? Wouldn't you engage the local bloggers? wouldn't you consult with the experts who already have a forum up, running and vibrant?

Having attended the New Media Expo in Las Vegas last August I can tell you that the only good presentations were the ones which focused on person experience, stories, creativity and craft. The ones that dealt with tactics, strategy, and tools were boring, salesy and lame. That's what i see is missing from most new media, social media groups, blogs, videos, podcasts and what not i come across. You learn more by doing and paying attention to what others are doing well.

-M

[Ryan Jerz]

This is not a 140 character long explanation, but I think it lays out some of the problem here. Depending on where you hear the term, it means something different from another place. Assumptions are made, however, not from what the person saying it means, but from what the person hearing it thinks.

http://www.mrjerz.org/blog/new-media-is-not-what-you-think-it-is

The really debatable thing keeps changing. A couple of years ago it was bloggers vs. media. Lame. Today I heard closed systems (protected source documents, anonymous quotes, etc) vs. open systems (data dumps, transparency from within the newsroom, etc.). I like that better. Encompassing it under a new vs. old umbrella is not completely correct.

As for my interpretation of this argument, I say it's a battle for internet coolness. Someone is trying to say, hey, check us out, we're here to own cool. But the cool is already so spread out it's a ludicrous idea to even attempt to claim something you haven't shown you understand yet. Or something like that.

[carrieh]

I'm with Dave on this one. I too have a hard time understanding why everyone gets their panties in a bunch over "New Media" when it's obvious social discourse was headed this way since the internet was first invented, and anyone who waited 'till the night before a research paper was due knows that news sources that offer their information free online are far more valuable and cited far more often than those you have to go to the basement to find on microfiche. My question, though, is how do I, a techno-NOT, beneficially incorporate this "New Media" into my daily life. Twitter doesn't work for me. I use the text to communicate information to specific people with whom I have need to communicate. It seems to me like Twitter (just for example, I'm not picking on Twitter, Mike...) gives me information when other people want to give me information, not when I want to receive it.

I would proffer the opinion that people are getting so excited about "New Media" not because the technology itself is especially novel, but that the reinvention of social discourse, which has been lost in this country for so long, is reemerging in an accessible, boarderless, and intelligent way. No longer the domain of talk radio on the one side and The New York Times on the other, the dissemination of and access to information, opinion, or art, is an invaluable power which lies at the stoke of a key to anyone with internet access, and THAT is the wonder of "New Media."

[Wolfy]

The Speaker @ the Ad Club luncheon today said something to the effect of don't think of it as new media, think of it as new creativity.

Word.

-M

[Elisa Maser]

Can you give an example of the "social discourse which has lost in this country for so long?"

Not sure the kind of discourse possible now was ever possible before, was it? And, yes, that's what's so amazing about it.

[carrieh]

It was possible before, but in a different and more limited form. I'm talking about the social discourse that began with a pamphlet printed with movable type and disseminated on horseback, and ended with more letters being written and sealed with wax stamps. The ideas that present day society is founded upon have been hashed out with quill and ink since the time of Plato, just as we're hashing it out now with clicks and beeps. But I studied political science, and the public writings and personal letters of Jefferson, Adams, Tocqueville, (no space to go on...) have obviously shaped not only our current political systems but I would argue our daily lives today. Imagine if everyone with their opinions and education had the power to engage in discussion, to learn from one another, and to expand the body of knowledge floating around amongst us. Would we be any different today if more people had a lasting voice as we do now? How will our future be shaped by the ease with which every schmo with a computer has the power to insert his 2 cents? It will take some serious sifting, but my opinion, I think it's a benefit.

[bobc]

"How will our future be shaped by the ease with which every schmo with a computer has the power to insert his 2 cents?"

People have been asking this question for at least 20 years -- because that's how long it's been going on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet

[bobc]

"And, yes, that's what's so amazing about it."

Thank you.

[dave aiazzi]

So here's what interesting to me. It seems that the Social Order is all about the new media being a "democratized" process. In fact that seems to be the definition so far to me. Now there are groups who want to put capital letters in front of it and call it New Media. My question is, so what if they do? Isn't it too late? One of the funniest things I know of is this:

Imagine, the ANARCHISTS having a logo! One definition of anarchy I found is this, "Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose." Isn't this what I am hearing is new media? So how does anyone even have a dream of harnessing anarchy?

Just a discussion.

-dave

[Wolfy]

Dave,

One of my major criticisms of the NNM info on their blog is that they deal too heavily in the HOW when it is obvious that so many people are still stuck on the why. And the reason so many are still stuck on the why is that they are afraid to jump in. It's hard to get a hold of the why unless you see the kind of communication, storytelling and discussion that can go on with new media unless you really get in and get your hands dirty.

My other criticism is in the apparent motivation of the founders/board. All professionals who APPARENTLY have little interest in the grassroots free storytelling heritage of new media and can only benefit from institutionalizing it and figuring out how to profit from it or teach others how to build a career from it.

That's why people say blogging is dead. Because the highest ranked blogs are commercial. But there are people still blogging about things other than marketing and SEO.

-M

[Donica Mensing]

Wolfy,

I love the energy and conversation and questions going on in this thread. It's obvious Reno has a critical mass for a new media community; I think that's one of the fundamental assumptions of the founders of this emerging organization (NNM or now NIM) you're all talking about.

I can't speak to the motivations of all of the participants but I know for myself and a few others on the organizing group that your characterization of the group's motivations is false. My goal is not to institutionalize new media or make a profit from this. It's to learn and see what comes from working together collaboratively. I'd love for some of my students to build a career from new media but my emphasis is on using social media to empower and engage communities, not corporatize it. As Tracy wrote a few days ago, this group is simply acting as a catalyst for the community to come together. What comes as a result of the summit should be the product of all our best thoughts.

What do you think should happen at a local summit for new media folks?

Donica

[bobc]

I think a point that Wolfy alludes to, which has been raised by others, me included, over and over and over, is that the founders of this effort appear to have little interaction with the local community in these forums and then come out and anoint themselves positions of decision makers of another new and improved forum to discuss these trends as if these discussions were never occurring in the first place.

It's a point that to me that is the crux of the issue and one that has yet to be addressed.

[Donica Mensing]

Hi, Bob --

Getting to the crux of the issue is good, seeing the volume that's been written about it. Here's the crux as I see it:

Is the idea of a new media/social media organization for northern Nevada a good idea or bad idea?

If it's a good idea, then let's get together and talk about how to make it work the best for all of us. That's the point of the summit. No one has been anointed. This is just a catalyst for a group conversation. Yes, many conversations have been going on, here, on blogs, in hallways, in bars, on Twitter, on Facebook, in classrooms, in boardrooms. Why not support a coming together for all of us?

If it's a bad idea, then ignore it.

If the crux of the issue, for you, is that it didn't launch on Reno Baby! then let's fix that. We can make this work if the idea is sound and useful. If it's bad and unnecessary, it will die on its own, don't you think? Why not come to the Summit and make your argument, either way?

Donica