http://inthefieldonline.net/blog

I got a question yesterday. I thought about blogging about it then, but things got in my way. The question was pretty simple:

- “Did you check YouTube on the democratic debate?”
- “I (Erik) have heard about it. I am not sure if I believe this to be as big as everyone claim though…”

I have heard many times this is so innovative and cool. It is cool for sure but innovative? More no than yes for sure. The main problem as I see it, is that the editors are choosing the questions in their own. The editors select videos which in a way is nothing else than writing the questions on their own or having their team come up with questions. I know it is a bit harsh but as you still have a human being part of the process.

My friend asked me a very important and central question:
“… and what (consistent) metrics is used to choose those 100 questions…”

My take is as simple as this. Sure, the questions are being asked by normal people via video. However, what is really the difference when you are selecting 100 questions from 10 000 of questions via a human selecting these? Personally I see very little difference other than you have different people reading the questions the editors would have chosen themselves in the first place. The key in new media is not that you get the average Joe to ask the questions, but to improve the selection process of the submitted questions. Otherwise you might as well keep the old media model. I will soon bring up how this should be done though.

What do I think of it? Of course you get some more questions, but is it worth the hype? Not really… I can however understand why it is hyped.

I read this link which is really stating the obvious. Thoughtful comments indeed. 10 obvious things about the future of newspapers you need to get through your head

One of Sweden’s biggest blogger – Linda Skugge – has decided she is fed up with the trolls and all the negative, offensive and rude comments she has gotten from her “readers”, so she will stop blogging. I do think it is sad that people choose that option. I got me thinking of the issues with the web of today and the social patterns it nurtures and emphasizes. Yet too many people forget that the web only will enhance the social patterns and structures of the web. Trolls on the web are not a product of the web, instead they are a product of our society. However harshly put, the ease in which you can broadcast your message on the web will make bad things worse and good things better. I think it is ironic even though very logical.

The key to remember about the regular internet user is the feeling of anonymity. You are sitting at home reading someone else’s blog, site or profiles. You see more of the person than the person of you (or at least so you think). You can easily broadcast to a much bigger audience than in any other commonly available and “freely” accessible distribution channel and thus you reach a bigger fraction of your wanted audience but also a bigger fraction of your unwanted audience. You just cannot separate them as the broadcast method is very much blind to the audience. Surprisingly many people forget this when discussing trolls and how to deal with them. This is a problem with the structure of our society, but not really the medium or technology.

What happens in for instance the blogosphere is very simple. The trolls submit posts/comments to which the blog owner reacts and write back to them. The trolls respond. The blog owner responds. More people join the discussing and very quickly a feeling of us against them is created and an intense and very often infected discussion is created. This behavior is very much destructive and doesn’t solve much.

What about enabling various authentication methods before submitting comments or moderation? Well, we haven’t really solved the issue as we only create an obstacle for people to submit. The problem still exists. What about shutting down the commenting function? I prefer to call it the real ostrich tactic. If we don’t see the problem, it doesn’t exist. I have news for you. Just like in the real world it doesn’t. Trolls will just find other channels and ways to get the message through. It is evident that technology can help to solve the flow of rude and offensive comments, but not really solve the real problem.

Basically the only way to solve the problem is to… solve it. Yee wiz!

Let us start to behave with respect to one another always, and try to understand each other. Yes I know it is a very, very optimistic idea, but it is the only sustainable solution so we might as well start now. In the meanwhile, don’t let the trolls get the space they want to have. I know it is the hardest possible way and I never said the solution was easy. Naturally we will always have the right to feel down and hurt by mean comments, but are we really solving the problem by being too confrontational with the trolls? I still don’t think so, but again I completely understand those who so choose to. We can only take so much as individuals and sometimes we need to fight back. Yet for me we need to always remember that it is a social problem. The road to the solution is to acknowledge that and we will find the solution – on the web and outside. Unfortunately there is no easy and convenient truth/solution to trolls. What we need to do is to over time controlling the anger, harnessing the frustration and channel it towards the right goal that is to solve the problem not cure the symptoms.

The solution is still and always will be openness, regardless of how hard it is to deal with the openness.

If anyone doubted that the media landscape is drastically changing and that we will see new outlets should definitely take a look at the article in todays Guardian - We all helped to speed the demise of professional photographers. I don’t fully agree with the title of the article as the future media scene will be a symbiosis between what we not call traditional media and specialized user contributed media sites.

Clearly Web 2.0 is not sufficient and we need to create more intelligence in the business logic of the future online media sites to take advantage of the power of the loose publishing model of social media and counteract the problems with it. Also the future media is facing issues both on the business model side as well as the legal side too. I prefer to start to explain by brushing up everyone on the true intention of the web and one of my favorite quotes from Tim Berner-Lee explaining his ideas behind the web:

“Suppose all the information stored on computers everywhere were linked… Suppose I could program my computer to create a space in which anything could be linked to anything…”

I do believe that this idea is lost to many times in the current debate on the web and the future of the web. I have written about this issue before – In the Wake of the Birth of the Web and The Social Web also known as Web 2.0.

The underlying idea of the web directly implies that philosophically it should be perfectly fine linking to other sites, thereby directly or indirectly giving them the credit for the content. If you are not storing their content, I will have a very hard time understanding why that would mean infringement of copyright. If that is copyright infringement then isn’t just telling it to my friends about the content also be copyright infringement? I know I am totally over exaggerating and the examples are not really compatible as the nature of broadcasting in the two different cases is very different. However online it is sometimes very hard to tell the two cases apart. I do believe we instead should try to adapt to the situation and find new ways to deal with copyrighted material and in particular how to make sure that the creators get credit and money for it. I do believe by letting them be part of the creation they will help us find a solution which will satisfy all parties. I would like to emphasize that I do not in any way – directly or indirectly - encourage copyright infringement and you should always respect copyrighted material.

The previous and ongoing disputes with Google News will also shed some light on the problem with linking to sites and how you can do that. From the case in Belgium, it is clear so far that you are allowed to link to the sites and even store a small snippet, but not store the full article. If someone disputes even that, we might as well start to think about banning search engines as they then also would be illegal - they link to sites and store a short snippet for each link. It opens up for a very interesting discussion which basically means no one can do anything with any content of the web if you do not ask them. To me, the whole thought behind the web is then completely lost and I certainly don’t believe that is the right way to go.

As for the business model, I do believe the outcome of the case between YouTube and Viacom will give guidance to the IT industry on how to treat the copyright issues online in a monetized environment (especially how to judge when a video clip becomes a copyright infringement and when it is not). The future advertising is definitely moving towards online video or IPTV (pick your flavor) so the case is highly relevant and timely. (The outcome will probably also impact the other available distribution channels too though.) The industry is in definite need of some guidance to handle these issues when you have advertising as a business model and it is still very much an unknown territory. What does the law really mean as for which solution is the right one? No, it is not very clear today.

My intention with this blog is to emphasize that the media scene is changing and will continue to change if yet only faster. Unfortunately the business models as well as the legal models have not evolved to match the development. The entrants, who best understand how to take advantage of all the different available distribution channels - offline, online, broadcast – the evolution of the media as well as the flatness of the world, will become huge hits. I have a bet on which site will be that, but that is a later question.

I have gotten a lot of questions lately on my passion.

There are stories out there which deserve to get heard and moreover understood. These voices are all around the globe. Constantly present. These voices regardless of where they are from and in whatever form get lost in the incredible information noise of this modern world. If they despite this incredible noise make it, the context is usually lost or become too distorted in it’s delivered package to really make sense. These voices should get heard in the right context, so that people around the world can listen and understand them. This is the key: Most people don’t listen to the voices because they cannot interpret them. It is about simple communication and connection between people, or in more direct words, a way to create human respect between people.

These personal stories and accounts give perspectives on events around us. You see the context in which the events happen in, and see the relations between the stories and even between the events. The frustration among people in war zones is tremendous. People are tired of the fighting and the wars, especially in the Middle East. The attention the blog I put up during the conflict in Lebanon for people to share their experiences clearly points this out. People don’t feel they have a mean to tell their side of the story. The result is boiling pot of emotions, frustration, and desperation for ways to tell their side of the story. When you have seen your mother, brothers and sisters die in a carbomb or smart bomb, seen the enemy soldiers rape your mother and sister, the rational decisions seem very far away. The anger, frustration and helplessness are overwhelming to anyone, and can easily be directed in the wrong direction. I do not and will never accept violence and terror, yet the root of the problem can and must be understood. This is not a political statement. It is a human statement of freedom of speech and openness about opinions. You could even claim it as a human right of freedom of choice.

It is not about reading one story, getting the comfortable perspective on things. For sure it is easier that way. It is about listening to people, understanding the context of their experiences, seeing the real context of events around you if you so choose. Feeling their emotions, getting the colors of the story. Getting the true citizen media, the true user stories. Real people telling their unedited experiences. Most people however need help to see and grasp the context and it needs to be packaged so that it easy and quick to digest but they also need to feel part of that process regardless whether they are consumers or contributors.

The absolute right or wrong about any event doesn’t exist. It is easier and more comfortable looking at the world in black and white, and being in a mode of on or off. Seeing the real context is something necessary and essential for our future. That is why you will need user contributed media, and that is why I am passionate about inthefieldONLINE.net where we provide tools today and continue to further develop the concept and create the proper framework for it.

To provide make this seamless and easy for consumers as well as contributors you will need advanced technology. Yet technology is secondary (even though necessary for scalability) and secondary it will be for a long time. It is all about giving people a vehicle to tell their stories in the right context. Technology is the tool and framework, nothing else.

Necessary, yes. The driving force, certainly not.

… and now for the skeptics. Please explain me this to me. Why is there an enormous difference between feeling the closeness of another person and watching that same person on video? What will it take to change that? A lot right?

Let us put the human aspect of technology into the business again. It will be so much more fun.

Most of all: This is the path to the true citizen media.