Confusing *a* public with *the* public « BuzzMachine
Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg seem to assume that once something is public, it’s public. They confused sharing with publishing. They conflate the public sphere with the making of a public. That is, when I blog something, I am publishing it to the world for anyone and everyone to see: the more the better, is the assumption. But when I put something on Facebook my assumption had been that I was sharing it just with the public I created and control there. That public is private. Therein lies the confusion. Making that public public is what disturbs people. It robs them of their sense of control—and their actual control—of what they were sharing and with whom (no matter how many preferences we can set). On top of that, collecting our actions elsewhere on the net—our browsing and our likes—and making that public, too, through Facebook, disturbed people even more. Where does it end? | source : www.buzzmachine.com
Recommandé parPaul Bradshaw le 22/08/10 09:46 | permalien
What if there are no secrets? « BuzzMachine
Is the Wikileaks story an example of crossing a line? First, we have to ask where the line should be. I think it has to move so that our default, especially in government, is transparency. Rather than asking what should be made public we should ask why something should be kept private. Imagine if all government information and actions were public except matters of security and personal and private identification. There will be pressure to head there. | source : www.buzzmachine.com
Recommandé parPaul Bradshaw le 26/07/10 18:48 | permalien
News(paper) in the cloud « BuzzMachine
But not JRC. By putting print at the end of the line, production for paper won’t dictate the rest of the line. So now a reporter can start blogging at the beginning of a story. And that makes a profound shift in the culture of news: it opens up the process to the public. “Here’s what I think I’ll work on,” the reporter says to the community she covers. “Good idea? Is there something else you think I should do instead? What’s the best use of my time? What do you want me to find out for you? If I do this story, what questions do you have? What do you know? Whom should I call?” As the process continues, the reporter can share what she learns — and doesn’t learn — and the community can help fill in blanks and make the reporting better. | source : www.buzzmachine.com
Recommandé parPaul Bradshaw le 14/04/10 08:22 | permalien
Serendipity is unexpected relevance « BuzzMachine
Can that relevance be analyzed and served? Can we still get serendipity online? Of course, we can and do — mostly on Twitter and Facebook. Serendipity comes from friends who find that story and — like an editor — pass it on. If we share their judgment, we may like what they share and call that serendipity. But there’s plenty that passes me by on Twitter that I don’t like; it’s serendipitous by the usual definitions but it doesn’t work for me because it has no value; it’s not relevant. | source : www.buzzmachine.com
Recommandé parPaul Bradshaw le 31/03/10 07:59 | permalien
The problem with comments isn’t them « BuzzMachine
Once we in media are finished with our work we allow the public to comment. We throw our product over the wall and let people react while we retreat into the castle and shut the gates so we cannot hear them. They know they are talking to bricks and so they shout and cover them with spray paint. Only we have the power to clean the mess but we’ve left the scene and so the castle walls are soon overrun with graffiti. | source : www.buzzmachine.com
Recommandé parPaul Bradshaw le 23/03/10 17:23 | permalien
Media’s evolving spheres of discovery « BuzzMachine
Thanks to new tools — Twitter, Facebook, Buzz — human linksare exploding as a means of discovery, which gives lie to the old-media complaints of Rupert Murdoch et al that aggregators are stealing their content. When your own readers recommend and link to your content, is that stealing? Do you want to turn those people away and call them worthless? Facebook, according to Hitwise, is the fourth largest referrer of audience to media. Bit.ly alone causes two billion clicks a month, double Google News’ impact. Soon Buzz will be causing many links (teaching Google what’s hot and relevant, which is a key reason to start the service). And, of course, bloggers have shown the way as curators. Thanks to our newer, easier tools that enable links, humans are becoming a huge force in content discovery, reducing search’s and algorithms’ share and dominance. | source : www.buzzmachine.com
Recommandé parPaul Bradshaw le 25/02/10 06:32 | permalien
"L'avenir de la presse est dans les réseaux" par Jeff Jarvis [video / fr]
À l'heure d'Internet, l'erreur des médias est de vouloir préserver leur ancien modèle économique, estime le blogueur Jeff Jarvis. Celui-ci préconise la mise en place d'un nouveau webjournalisme, basé sur la sélection et l'enrichissement de contenus. Un entretien majeur, en français / et qui en éclairera plus d'un sur ce que nous sommes en train de monter /-) | source : www.france24.com
Recommandé parNicolas Voisin le 31/01/10 17:02 | permalien
The cockeyed economics of metering reading « BuzzMachine
I know, the argument is that these readers use the content more so they should be charged more. But that is based on the assumption that content is a consumable, a scarcity that drains the more it is read. Of course, it isn’t. Content is, instead, a magnet that can create relationships of value; whether that happens is up to the creator of the content and the quality of service and relevance is gives. That, dare I repeat it, is the basis of the link economy. But note the verb that started off the paragraph above: should. Readers who read more should pay more. This is the product of journalism’s sense of entitlement. | source : www.buzzmachine.com
Recommandé parPaul Bradshaw le 18/01/10 08:14 | permalien
The right to link « BuzzMachine
Right. Linking is not a privilege that the recipient of the link should control – any more than politicians should decide who may or may not quote them. The test is not whether the creator of the link charges (Murdoch’s newspapers will charge and they link). The test is whether the thing we are linking to is public. If it is public for one it should be public for all. | source : www.buzzmachine.com
Recommandé parPaul Bradshaw le 18/01/10 07:16 | permalien