Jim McClintock's Library tagged communications → View Popular

Filter:
All
Annotated

21 Jan 09

Information Dissemination: Observing a Dying Model of Information Control

informationdissemination.blogspot.com/...eing-model-of-information.html - Preview

information architecture communications politics news media

Jay Rosen has contributed a very important discussion on his PressThink blog that I think represents a point-in-time analysis of the shift taking place in the information space today. Audience Atomization Overcome: Why the Internet Weakens the Authority of the Press is brilliant.
The problem I see with Jay's analysis is that he suggests that the unregulated nature of the Web 2.0 medium, what he describes as horizontal connectivity, is the means by which journalism is losing authority.
14 more annotations...
- s the means simply a medium or is it more specific to content competition?
- it is essentially a model that explains information control. What this model highlights is the current methodology of content flow. The content flows from the core out to the middle, where it is filtered, then again out to the masses outside the circle.
- Essentially, every public or private enterprise has a message, they own that message and have consensus when representing it publicly, but this information has been delivered the same way forever, in a press release. Historically, the content generated in the “sphere of consensus” has always had to flow through the “sphere of legitimate debate” to reach the masses. Using the model above, content generated in the “sphere of consensus” is raw, unfiltered content.
- I see a “sphere of legitimate debate” that enriches the raw content with content contributors who generate narratives for the masses (media, analyst, author, blog, radio, etc). The content enrichment process by content contributors produces what the masses call news, editorials, and analysis. The content contributors who dominate the “sphere of legitimate debate” act in the role of a filter for the raw information flowing from the “sphere of consensus.”
- Finally, I see a “sphere of deviance” of folks who represent groups whose size reflects the consensus of any specific narrative generated by a content contributor. The primary characteristic of a member of the “sphere of deviance” is that they don't generate new narratives, they simply reflect the consensus of any specific narrative already generated on a topic, and the size of the consensus in the “sphere of deviance” reflects the strength of the narrative generated by a content contributor in the “sphere of legitimate debate”.
- I believe content consensus is only achieved when the raw content produces a single narrative in the “sphere of legitimate debate”, and that narrative becomes the accepted majority of folks in the “sphere of deviance”. In other words, real consensus only exists when the majority of folks in all three spheres share a single narrative.
- Looking at the model it is important to recognize it is linear, or put another way 2-dimensional.
- There is an information flow process for content, and in this model the narrative is added by those who don't actually own the raw data. Any content contributor in the “sphere of legitimate debate” acts as the filter for the raw content under this model, thus is able to exercise information control regarding what is delivered to the masses.
- Today, government and commercial enterprises have messages for the masses, but have historically had to pay some cost (money, criticism, etc.) to the filters in the "sphere of legitimate debate" to get content to the masses. Web 2.0 is changing this model, and thus rendering the diagram above obsolete in the process.
- The next evolution in information comes as public affairs in the enterprises represented in the "sphere of consensus" no longer depends on the "sphere of legitimate debate", and without those content filters can reach the masses in the "sphere of deviance" with a narrative directly without costs to their content.
- By operating in the 3D plane of content distribution, they connected horizontally by jumping over the filters in the "sphere of legitimate debate" time and time again delivering a raw narrative that accurately represented the consensus position of the Obama camp, the result being the filters became part of the masses, or put another way, the filter for content was eliminated.
- The ability for enterprises to deliver directly to the masses, without the cost or filters that come with moving content through the "sphere of legitimate debate" is transforming the 2D model of information control Jay is discussing (a model journalists have long enjoyed), and will turn it into a 3D model for content distribution with a narrative. The results of this evolution will weaken the way journalism currently controls information.
- That will force the evolution in journalism that is slow in development but already happening, whereby journalists reclaim authority by learning to compete for position in the hierarchy of the 3D distribution model.
- Because the core creates its own narrative in the emerging model, journalists may require better analytical skill and expertise to engage that narrative in the "sphere of legitimate debate", a process of rebranding a narrative from the core with a new filter.
  
  With this requirement to rebrand a narrative, a journalists may need assistance, therefore need to build a network of blogger professionals and experts that also operates in the "sphere of legitimate debate" (happens in journalism already) to assist them in their work. We have already seen this process develop to some extent, a journalist will exercise their authority by building up the authority of their blogger partners who develop their own narratives, a give and take process that strengthens the network of a journalist.