Internet Manifestation

Yesterday, 15 German bloggers published that must-have of all intellectual movements, a Manifesto (see notes on the 100 year old Futurist Manifesto here). Seth Godin demands it as a first step to recruiting your own personal Tribe, and many a Wannabee has followed, whether it suits or not. Thus we were a bit sceptical - Yawn, Yet Another Media-grubbing Manifesto, usually a thinly disguised attempt to set oneself up as chief swami and tithe-taker. This one is different from the bulk of 'em, as (i) it is written by a team, (ii) it deals with a very real subject, to wit the future of journalism, and (iii) it is clearly trying to help the debate rather than self-aggrandize.

As the Grauniad notes, their reasons for doing it were classical honest whistleblower motives:

We were tired of the fact that the discussion about the future of journalism doesn't take the reality of the internet into account, but revolves around the wishes of how the publishers think it should be," said one of the initiators of the manifesto, Sascha Lobo.

.........

Most of the time when mainstream media take a stance on the future of journalism, they report, with some exceptions, the positions of the powerful, not of the innovators. The paid-content debate, for example, was mostly triggered on the pages and websites of major newspapers and largely suited their traditional opinion.

That point about the mainstream media only reporting the voice of the powerful is one of the most frequent criticisms of serious MSM (and in our view has been one of the major points of information arbitrage that allowed blogs to get so far, so fast - the others being interactivty, economics and 24/7 sleb stalking). Anyway, its over here if you want to read it yourself - I've copied it and annotated it with my thoughts [in square brackets and italics]. Ignore the manifesto-ese its written in and go for the meaning:

Internet Manifesto

How journalism works today. Seventeen declarations

1. The internet is different.

It produces different public spheres, different terms of trade and different cultural skills. The media must adapt their work methods to today's technological reality instead of ignoring or challenging it. It is their duty to develop the best possible form of journalism based on the available technology. This includes new journalistic products and methods.

[Bankruptcy is a function of not doing one's duty to journalism - nice twist]

2. The internet is a pocket-sized media empire.

The web rearranges existing media structures by transcending their former boundaries and oligopolies. The publication and dissemination of media contents are no longer tied to heavy investments. Journalism's self-conception is, fortunately, being bereft of its gatekeeping function. All that remains is the journalistic quality through which journalism distinguishes itself from mere publication.

[Actually, we believe that the gatekeeping role is merely shifting as the industry is in flux - to Google currently, but it will shift again to trusted guides to the content one wants - and those will be the new areas of value capture and will be investments]

3. The internet is our society is the internet.

Web-based platforms like social networks, Wikipedia or YouTube have become a part of everyday life for the majority of people in the western world. They are as accessible as the telephone or television. If media companies want to continue to exist, they must understand the world of today's users and embrace their forms of communication. This includes basic forms of social communication: listening and responding, also known as dialogue.

[We partly demur in that any student of media evolution - especially German! - must know Riepl's law which shows that new media washes over but doesn't totally displace the old. In fact we observe there is usually an initial overcorrection, and later a comeback of the old media (eg Vinyl records). What is true is that there is no longer enough value in the old media to maintain current cost structures.]

4. The freedom of the internet is inviolable.

The internet's open architecture constitutes the basic IT law of a society which communicates digitally and, consequently, of journalism. It may not be modified for the sake of protecting the special commercial or political interests often hidden behind the pretense of public interest. Regardless of how it is done, blocking access to the internet endangers the free flow of information and corrupts our fundamental right to a self-determined level of information.

[The freedom of the internet can feasibly be blocked, as the Chinses have proven. That it by and large is not in the West is a critical freedom that must be fought for, and probably paid for. Pipers call tunes.....]

5. The internet is the victory of information.

Due to inadequate technology, media companies, research centres, public institutions and other organisations compiled and classified the world's information up to now. Today every citizen can set up her own personal news filter while search engines tap into a wealth of information of a magnitude never before known. Individuals can now inform themselves better than ever.

[They can indeed, but in our view only about 10% will (based on behaviour on social media to date). The rest are quite happy to exist, sheep-like, on the recommendations of trusted others. That 10% however are the main drivers of the shift away from old media, and will capture the other 90%. That is the risk old media face in not shifting]

6. The internet changes improves journalism.

Through the internet, journalism can fulfil its socio-educational role in a new way. This includes presenting information as an ever-changing, continual process; the forfeiture of print media's inalterability is a benefit. Those who want to survive in this new world of information need a new idealism, new journalistic ideas and a sense of pleasure in exploiting this new potential.

[And a large savings account to fund it - At Broadstuff we have the "circulation" of a fairly successful print magazine but there is no way we could get those revenues today. But over time this will change, as the money chases the eyeballs, albeit with a lag]

7. The net requires networking.

Links are connections. We know each other through links. Those who do not use them exclude themselves from social discourse. This also holds for the websites of traditional media companies.

[Interestingly, some of the biggest trends right now are in using the Net as New Broadcasting Media - the Slebs on Twitter don't talk, they use the asynchronous linking to simulate a broadcast media. The key lesson for Old Media is that New Media will do the broadcast as well as interactive roles]

8. Links reward, citations adorn.

Search engines and aggregators facilitate quality journalism: they boost the findability of outstanding content over a long-term basis and are thus an integral part of the new, networked public sphere. References through links and citations — especially including those made without any consent of or even remuneration of the originator—make the very culture of networked social discourse possible in the first place. They are by all means worthy of protection.

[True overall so far - but see the above point on how linkage is being used for broadcasting. Also, one of the emerging issues of "link economies" is that it gives status to the most linked to, rather than the most relevant, and the most linked garners more links in a "positive returns" dynamic as search engines put these links up highest. It is also becoming clear that these links can be bought, so social capital - aka "whuffie" - is at the mercy of those with financial capital. The risk here is the 'Net merely shifts power from one set of the powerful to another.]

9. The internet is the new venue for political discourse.

Democracy thrives on participation and freedom of information. Transferring the political discussion from traditional media to the internet and expanding on this discussion by involving the active participation of the public is one of journalism's new tasks.

[Also, there is no value left in this in old media - charge for Op-Ed when there are thousands of blogs dissecting every issue minutely by the minute?. Pur-leeze, as they say. In our view one of the major differences is that New Media know the impact of every article by every writer to the last millisecond of attention, Old Media too often still judge their journalists' ability by the approbation of the chatterati cocktail circuit. Guess which is more closely tied to economic reality?]

10. Today's freedom of the press means freedom of opinion.

Article 5 of the German Constitution does not comprise protective rights for professions or traditional business models. The internet overrides the technological boundaries between the amateur and professional. This is why the privilege of freedom of the press must hold for anyone who can contribute to the fulfilment of journalistic duties. Qualitatively speaking, no differentiation should be made between paid and unpaid journalism, but rather, between good and poor journalism.

[Freedom is a precious thing - its not a given on the Internet - and as well as some "less free" countries demonstrating what can be done, it is increasingly being sucked out by insidious datamining. The next battleground will be user pivacy]

11. More is more – there is no such thing as too much information.

Once upon a time, institutions such as the church prioritised power over personal awareness and warned of an unsifted flood of information when the letterpress was invented. On the other hand, pamphleteers, encyclopaedists and journalists proved that more information leads to more freedom, both for the individual as well as society as a whole. To this day, nothing has changed in this respect.

[I like Leisa Reichelt's view - companies think more is more, users think less is more. The issue has moved from information access to information filtering. There is significant future value in being a trusted filter this, in our view]

12. Tradition is not a business model.

Money can be made on the internet with journalistic content. There are many examples of this today already. Yet because the internet is fiercely competitive, business models have to be adapted to the structure of the net. No one should try to abstain from this essential adaptation through policy-making geared to preserving the status quo. Journalism needs open competition for the best refinancing solutions on the net, along with the courage to invest in the multifaceted implementation of these solutions.

[There is currently a lag between attention on the 'Net and money being made there. This is skewing the 'Net business models as well as destroying Old Media' profits. It happens in every new industry, especially those funded by (conservative) advertisers. The best thing Old Media could do for itself is show how its own advertisers' can transfer value to the 'Net so they can transfer their assets and make money]

13. Copyright becomes a civic duty on the internet.

Copyright is a central cornerstone of information organization on the Internet. Originators' rights to decide on the type and scope of dissemination of their contents are also valid on the net. At the same time, copyright may not be abused as a lever to safeguard obsolete supply mechanisms and shut out new distribution models or license schemes. Ownership entails obligations.

[Hear Hear - there have been egregious abuses of copyright on all sides. The more attempts to use it to lock in absurd prices and lifetime timescales, the more it will be pirated. The iTunes lesson remains relevant - provide good service at a good price, nmost people will buy into it.]

14. The internet has many currencies.

Journalistic online services financed through adverts offer content in exchange for a pull effect. A reader's, viewer's or listener's time is valuable. In the industry of journalism, this correlation has always been one of the fundamental tenets of financing. Other forms of refinancing which are journalistically justifiable need to be forged and tested.

[The value in old media was never in the journalism alone. They forgot that as the business model became "baked in" and status transferred to the journalists while value stayed in the smalls. Craigslist was the alarm but few woke up. One trusts they are paying attention now]

15. What's on the net stays on the net.

The internet is lifting journalism to a new qualitative level. Online, text, sound and images no longer have to be transient. They remain retrievable, thus building an archive of contemporary history. Journalism must take the development of information, its interpretation and errors into account, i.e., it must admit its mistakes and correct them in a transparent manner.

{We see real value here in being a trusted source to give a "qualified" view on an otherwise constantly shifting sandscape of cuat and paste opinionating and a continual "torrent of cr*p". Even the 'Netz most devoted adherents cannot deny that its signal to noise ratio is pretty poor at the moment. A corollary to this is that those embarassing rat-arsed drunk photos you put on-net will be there when you are 20 years older, you may not want to build a detailed archive of your contemporary history .]

16. Quality remains the most important quality.

The internet debunks homogeneous bulk goods. Only those who are outstanding, credible and exceptional will gain a steady following in the long run. Users' demands have increased. Journalism must fulfil them and abide by its own frequently formulated principles.

[The "bulk good" point is important - one Man in Havana is useful, 10 saying the same thing are not. Filter. Edit. Curate = Trust]

17. All for all.

The web constitutes an infrastructure for social exchange superior to that of 20th century mass media: when in doubt, the "generation Wikipedia" is capable of appraising the credibility of a source, tracking news back to its original source, researching it, checking it and assessing it — alone or as part of a group effort. Journalists who snub this and are unwilling to respect these skills are not taken seriously by internet users. Rightly so. The internet makes it possible to communicate directly with those once known as recipients — readers, listeners and viewers — and to take advantage of their knowledge. It is not the 'know-it-all' journalists who are in demand, but those who communicate and investigate.

[I would argue the above is true, but with "social lags". You can fool some of the people some of the time etc, but eventually you will be found out - and, as Article 15 implies, the Internet doesn't forget]

I came to praise the Manifesto, not to bury it in bon mots and layers of lacunae, and otherwise quibble! But it is the role of all Manifestos to raise their standards on the sunny high ground, and the role of all followers to try and pick their way through the rocks and mud on the lower slopes

By the way, I dug out a whole lot of Douglas Adams' views on media from 1999 over here - it makes a fascinating read along with this manifesto. If I may be so bold, I would argue we are living in a transition - a Schumpeterian Creative Destruction cycle in fact - as one economic model of media replaces another. The last time this happened was when TV took over from Newspapers....... This Manifesto is a guide to the endgame, but it written from the deck of a ship in turbulent seas and future sightings will also need to be taken. But its a bloody good start, nonetheless!