Social Media: Difference between revisions
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
=Discussion | =Discussion= | ||
==Social Media are Dead== | |||
Steve Rubel at [http://www.micropersuasion.com/2006/12/social_media_is.html Micropersuasion]: | Steve Rubel at [http://www.micropersuasion.com/2006/12/social_media_is.html Micropersuasion]: | ||
| Line 60: | Line 62: | ||
==How Social Media affects Journalism== | |||
Miriam Meckel: | |||
"Suddenly, the rules of the game have changed. Citizens have become “citizen journalists” and help to define the journalistic agenda through new communication platforms. They provide information, critical feedback and pictures to local events and global developments. Articles and op-ed pieces are shared, tagged, linked to, quoted and re-published across a large range of platforms. And journalists themselves are now faced with the need to take responses from their readers seriously. The media landscape is more diversified and more interactive than ever before. | |||
But readers don’t just consume the work or professional journalists and respond to it. They set topics themselves. Story ideas often originate within communities that grapple with a specific question – and the subsequent research is crowdsourced in ways that are impossible to achieve within the rigid environment of the traditional newsroom. Thousands of people have helped the British newspaper The Guardian to analyze more than 450,000 receipts for expenses from parliamentarians to uncover potential instances of fraud. Hints for investigative stories result not only from journalistic work but also from information passed around in social networks (as long as journalists understand how to use them). Data from organizations such as Wikileaks even requires the re-conceptualization of journalistic work and the participation of many. Enormous amounts of data must be carefully combed and analyzed to reveal newsworthy facts and connections – a task that any single newsroom is poorly equipped to fulfill. | |||
The consequence of these developments is paradigmatic change in nine different areas of journalism: | |||
1) Journalists risk losing their authoritative voice. | |||
2) New roles emerge. Journalists serve as aggregators or brokers; they collect and analyze information and serve as links between different communities. | |||
3) There is no single audience. Readers can be grouped into communities that differ in the degree of their activity. | |||
4) Corporate brands are replaced or supplemented by personality-driven brands. | |||
5) No journalistic product will ever be “finished”. Articles remain in the beta stage; they are updated and changed over time. | |||
6) The writer/reader hierarchy breaks down. It is replaced by the permanent interaction between different participants that can serve as either reader or writer at different points in time. | |||
7) Journalists who ignore the collaborative and communicative potential of the Internet are sidelined by those who embrace it. | |||
8) There is no “offline” opinion. The internet is the arena of opinion formation. It is arrogant for any journalist to assume superiority of intellect or knowledge over his readers." | |||
(http://www.miriammeckel.de/2011/01/14/embedded-2-0/) | |||
9) The Internet reveals mistakes and carelessness. It deconstructs journalistic pieces for their poor quality. | |||
=More Information= | =More Information= | ||
Revision as of 08:36, 17 January 2011
Definition
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media:
"Social media describes the online technologies and practices that people use to share opinions, insights, experiences, and perspectives with each other."
Social Media are said to emerge when the two earlier paradigms of the internet, as communication medium and as publishing medium, are merged.
More attempts:
- A potpourri of definitions is maintained by Brent Csutoras
- Mashable collected the best 20 reader responses on "What are social media", at http://mashable.com/2010/06/11/top-20-mashable-reader-responses-to-what-is-social-media/
Typology
"Much of my presentations focus on social media, Social Bookmarking and social networking (YES, there is a VERY big distinction between the three (or four)). I contend that the former consists of sites like Wikipedia, Citizendium, Digg, SocialMedian, Newsvine, Twitter, StumbleUpon, Marketwatch and even Reuters Buzz and TD Ameritrade. Social Bookmarking consists of sites like Delicious, Magnolia and Furl. Social Networking consists of sites like Facebook, MySpace, Friendster, Bebo and newcomers like Corkd, Ning, and SocialGo. Maybe even there's room for a distinction between social media sites and social aggregators like FriendFeed, SocialThing, and others.
There is a very big difference between these four. Social Media relies on the wisdom of crowds and policing of its constituents. The users and community determine the story, definition, accuracy, popularity and trend of the data and/or information. Social Bookmarking sites allows users to store, organize, search, and manage information with other users. Social Networking consists of sites that allow its users to congregate, conversate and organize friends, events and information. Social Aggregators, which is still somewhat of a new term, allow users to stream their online lives and peer into the lives of others." (http://www.eyeballeconomy.com/2008/08/immunity-or-community.html)
Graphic: Social Media Categories, outlines 15 types of social media in one graphic [1]
Characteristics
"1. social medias network user generated content.
On Flickr many people upload photos from their cameras and mobile phones not just to put them on the internet, but as a form of presence that shows their friends what they're up to and where in the world they are. Their content is a social glue. Meanwhile, other users are busy competing with each other, getting support and advice from other users, or are collecting photos, tagging photos or using them in new creative ways due to the benefits of Creative Commons licenses. Somewhere at the back of all of this is a concept of publishing, but it's a one that's been elaborated on and extended extensively.
2. Social media aggregate user generated content.
Social media are all about creating what Tim O'Reilly in his essay "what is web2.0?" calls architectures of participation. But it's not just that. The architectures of participation allow users to create in aggregate value for all.
These new services are about creating frameworks and spaces, containers and supports that help users create and publish and use all kinds of data from the smallest comment to the best produced video clip which in aggregate create something of fascinating utility to all.
One could assert that social media creates added value for all from the aggregate of data that individuals publish in their selfish pursuit of their individual goals." (http://i-wisdom.typepad.com/iwisdom/2006/04/social_media_ve.html)
Stowe Boyd distinguishes four characteristics.
Discussion
Social Media are Dead
Steve Rubel at Micropersuasion:
"Social media, according to Wikipedia, includes "the online tools and platforms that people use to share opinions, insights, experiences and perspectives with each other." This includes blogs, message boards, podcasts, wikis, vlogs and so on. For the last few years this was all considered related to, but separate from mainstream media. That point of differentiation is now gone.
In 2006 all media went social. Pretty much every newspaper, TV network and publication has wholeheartedly embraced these technologies. Newspapers have comments, RSS feeds, blogs, wikis and other forms of two-way communications. TV networks have a presence in Second Life and more. The lines have blurred. Even some of the marketers themselves are producing content that could be called "media."
The changes in communications go deeper, however. The media formerly called mainstream also communicates in a far more conversational tone that it did before -- one we use.
Meanwhile, the barriers to becoming a member of the fourth estate have been obliterated by these very same technologies. Look at Robert Scoble's writing this week as he tags along with John Edwards on the campaign trail.
So as we roll into 2007, it's fair to say that "social media" as a separate entity is dead ... There's no point in differentiating any more." (http://www.micropersuasion.com/2006/12/social_media_is.html)
How Social Media affects Journalism
Miriam Meckel:
"Suddenly, the rules of the game have changed. Citizens have become “citizen journalists” and help to define the journalistic agenda through new communication platforms. They provide information, critical feedback and pictures to local events and global developments. Articles and op-ed pieces are shared, tagged, linked to, quoted and re-published across a large range of platforms. And journalists themselves are now faced with the need to take responses from their readers seriously. The media landscape is more diversified and more interactive than ever before.
But readers don’t just consume the work or professional journalists and respond to it. They set topics themselves. Story ideas often originate within communities that grapple with a specific question – and the subsequent research is crowdsourced in ways that are impossible to achieve within the rigid environment of the traditional newsroom. Thousands of people have helped the British newspaper The Guardian to analyze more than 450,000 receipts for expenses from parliamentarians to uncover potential instances of fraud. Hints for investigative stories result not only from journalistic work but also from information passed around in social networks (as long as journalists understand how to use them). Data from organizations such as Wikileaks even requires the re-conceptualization of journalistic work and the participation of many. Enormous amounts of data must be carefully combed and analyzed to reveal newsworthy facts and connections – a task that any single newsroom is poorly equipped to fulfill.
The consequence of these developments is paradigmatic change in nine different areas of journalism:
1) Journalists risk losing their authoritative voice.
2) New roles emerge. Journalists serve as aggregators or brokers; they collect and analyze information and serve as links between different communities.
3) There is no single audience. Readers can be grouped into communities that differ in the degree of their activity.
4) Corporate brands are replaced or supplemented by personality-driven brands.
5) No journalistic product will ever be “finished”. Articles remain in the beta stage; they are updated and changed over time.
6) The writer/reader hierarchy breaks down. It is replaced by the permanent interaction between different participants that can serve as either reader or writer at different points in time.
7) Journalists who ignore the collaborative and communicative potential of the Internet are sidelined by those who embrace it.
8) There is no “offline” opinion. The internet is the arena of opinion formation. It is arrogant for any journalist to assume superiority of intellect or knowledge over his readers."
(http://www.miriammeckel.de/2011/01/14/embedded-2-0/)
9) The Internet reveals mistakes and carelessness. It deconstructs journalistic pieces for their poor quality.
More Information
- What do we do with social media, at http://www.plasticbag.org/archives/2006/03/what_do_we_do_with_social_media.shtml
- Social Media Case Studies, list of case studies with corporate usage of social media
- Social Media Glossary: 100 keywords