By forcing businesses to become more transparent and distributing the means of media production it was argued that our society would change for the better.

This point of view probably peaked in 2006/7 but bubbled below the surface for a lot longer than that.

I fully subscribe to this point of view.  I still do.

But there are doubts and questions in my mind.

2011 hasn’t done anything to allay my fears.

Since 2008 we’ve seen major abuses of poor by power elites and institutions in almost every sphere of our existence. Yes, these abuses have been exposed but take the global financial crisis as an example and you can see that little has actually changed despite the exposure of the wrong doers.

Over the last few weeks, we’ve seen the Occupy movement spring up but I don’t believe that any Government is actually really listening.  Yes, they have a voice.  Yes, they’ve gained some media coverage for their struggle and point of view but to what end.  Will anything really change?  The strong arm tactics employed by the police in the UK, Australia and USA would suggest that the traditional institutions still have the right to operate in the way that they see fit.

Taking a slight tangent here the one thing that really concerns me is this.

The companies that are really benefiting from social media are not complying or furthering the principles of openness and transparency upon which their industry is supposedly based.  Companies like Google and Facebook are in fact operating in very shady and opaque ways when it comes to managing information and data.

What hope is there  for greater transparency in society when the companies at the forefront of social media are acting in this way?

Marx argued that religion is the opiate of the people. Will social media one day assume this moniker?

Wikileaks has been forced to stop publishing in order to focus its efforts on beating the blockade.

It’s a scary world we live in.  More from The Sydney Morning Herald.

]]> http://justanother24hours.com/politics/added-wikileaks-fund-raising-pop-up-to-this-blog/feed/ 0 http://justanother24hours.com/media/on-board-with-guy-martin-at-the-isle-of-man-tt-honda-1000-via-dad/ http://justanother24hours.com/media/on-board-with-guy-martin-at-the-isle-of-man-tt-honda-1000-via-dad/#comments Mon, 24 Oct 2011 07:43:40 +0000 Daniel Young http://justanother24hours.com/?p=1423

There has been much speculation in the Australian media about the possible return of Kevin Rudd MP as the leader of the Australian Labor Party, currently the Federal Government.

He was deposed by his deputy in a ‘bloody coup’ (only metaphorically speaking) last year.

The media has had a field day with the Rudd to Return speculation, which is odd as I simply can’t see it happening.

During his tenure as PM and leader of the party, Rudd was exposed as a very poor leader, he was shown to be controlling and unable to negotiate or compromise.  It was widely accepted that he was obsessed with style over substance, manipulative towards the media, travelled too much, enjoyed pointless talk fests and presided over poorly managed public sector programs.

Crucially, he was also very unpopular with everyday Australians.

For these reasons his return would be a kamikaze move by the Labour Party and simply won’t happen.

Yet we’re subject to the endless speculation by the media and the opposition (and possibly fuelled by Rudd), which undermines the Government and detracts from the very very important issues of the day.

There are only two possible explanations – either they think we’re stupid or they actually believe this stuff, which makes them stupid.

]]> http://justanother24hours.com/politics/kevin-rudd-to-return-really/feed/ 1 http://justanother24hours.com/politics/we-often-have-cnn-on-in-the-office-at-work-the-hop-topic-of-late-has-been-obama-the-so-called-political-commentary-now-includes-direct-and-personal-attacks-which-seem-to-the-new-norm-in-politics/ http://justanother24hours.com/politics/we-often-have-cnn-on-in-the-office-at-work-the-hop-topic-of-late-has-been-obama-the-so-called-political-commentary-now-includes-direct-and-personal-attacks-which-seem-to-the-new-norm-in-politics/#comments Wed, 17 Aug 2011 02:35:19 +0000 Daniel Young http://justanother24hours.com/?p=1387 We often have CNN on in the office at work.

The hop topic of late has been Obama. The so called political commentary now includes direct and personal attacks, which seem to the new norm in politics.

Closer to home in Australia, we’re seeing a similar trend.

The Prime Minister has been re-branded as Juliar Gillard and is regularly on the receiving end of that jibe during parliamentary sittings and Question Time.

You don’t see this kind of behaviour in the business world or amongst normal people, how can it be acceptable in public service?

Shouldn’t politicians in all countries be setting standards for respect and constructive debate between people rather than lowering the bar.

More from BATalsdr

One option is to move away from the convention of neutral news reporting and move into more opinionated territory.  This opinion could take many forms  but fundamentally newspapers either become more political or more activist.  I think a good example of the latter is The Guardian campaign in support of the International Year of Biodiversity.

On the political spectrum we have the politically aligned Fox News, which as Paul Krugman of Princeton University says in this article for the New York Times has ‘decided that it no longer needs to maintain even the pretense of being nonpartisan’.

“Nobody who was paying attention has ever doubted that Fox is, in reality, a part of the Republican political machine; but the network — with its Orwellian slogan, “fair and balanced” — has always denied the obvious. Officially, it still does. But by hiring those G.O.P. candidates, while at the same time making million-dollar contributions to the Republican Governors Association and the rabidly anti-Obama United States Chamber of Commerce, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns Fox, is signaling that it no longer feels the need to make any effort to keep up appearances.”

Of course, political alignment in the media is not a new thing but out and out political bias, control and affiliation is.  Perhaps its inevitable given the completely unfettered nature of the blogosphere but a potentially worrying trend nonetheless.

Will political opinion and vested interests characterise the future of media?  Do you think activism is a sustainable strategy for traditional media in print and online?

Clay Shirky presented on the topic of a ‘cognitive surplus’ for his book Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organising without Organisations. He said that approx100million hours has been invested in the creation of Wikipedia.  By contrast, there are trillions of global hours available within ’surplus’ every year.  The premise for the presentation was that humans are generous creatures and that new technology presents huge potential for altruistic, collaborative behaviour that delivers a greater good.

This idea is the basis for many aspects of the Social Web (for want of a better term, as this is broader than social media).  The notion that efficient networks without geographic boundaries will  act as the vehicle for human endeavour in the pursuit of positive economic, creative and educational outcomes has great appeal.

The idea of a cognitive surplus is also fascinating in the context of widespread budget deficits but don’t expect any major policy announcements from Gillard or Abbott on this topic just yet!

The presentation got me thinking about the question of a political culture within the realm of  the Social Web.  If Social is about sharing, co-operation and contributing to community then is it safe to assume that a left leaning political culture underpins the ‘movement’?

Is it important for the community to acknowledge in some capacity the presence of a common political ethos within the Social Web or the perhaps to acknowledge the lack of one?  Does the Social Web transcend traditional notions of political affiliation or realisation?  Are creativity and collaboration apolitical forces in 2010?

Most importantly, can our positive vision of a Social good delivered by technology and the Web be achieved without a political consensus?

The article makes the point that companies need to make their brand websites more social, personal, human and interactive. We’re already seeing a lot of brands moving in this direction with corporate blogs and  community content built into their branded website experience.

I think this trend will continue.

Some may argue that social media fulfils the need for interactivity and conversational marketing;  they’re right but I do believe that we’ll see the balance equalise for the following reasons:

• Brands know that social network users are fickle and that sites can quickly fall out of favour. This makes it a risky place to invest in order to establish your social presence online
• Branding is about differentiation – social networks inhibit differentiation by forcing brands to work within templates.  Brands owners will want to regain control of the way they are presented
• The conversations that make up social media will become core to business – the emphasis will shift from social networks back to the branded website
• Brands will become leaders and not followers in social media as they become content producers & media companies in their own right
• Brands will allow the user to create their own experience within the confines of the branded website by adding or removing social objects, content and apps, which the user can then bring into their social network.  The brand website will act as a social hub.

The article ran in today’s Sydney Morning Herald and Melbourne Age: Building a better relationship with online customers

Take for example, the Telstra Social Review program, a competition whereby Australians with a social media presences could ‘compete’ (in loose terms) for the chance to be one of 25 social reviewers.  The final 25 were each given a HTC handset and asked to review it for 2 weeks.

There is nothing new about this initiative in some respects – it is essentially a blogger relations program – but the public nature of the Telstra ‘experiment’ represents a very different approach.  Good blogger relations practitioners will insist on full disclosure but its rare for an organisation to PR this kind of program in the way that Telstra did.

As a result, Telstra has telegraphed its respect for blogging (as well as other forms of social media) and I believe that other Australian corporations will sit up and take notice.

I believe that ‘commercial confidence’ in blogging is a requirement for blogging if it is to acheive genuine mainstream acceptance.  This ‘commerial confidence’ could take many forms including advertising and sponsorship investment, collaboration, access, insights or simply advocacy.

The blogging community is challenged however by a fundamental lack of transparency.

Readership data underpins the traditional media sector, it provides the business justification for advertising spend and PR programs. In a section of the media where the glossy finish of the product (or lack of it ) bares little or no relationship to its reach and influence, its essential that proprietors become more open about their traffic and engagement scores.

Commercial (business) decisions are based on an assessment of risk over opportunity.  The blogging community in Australia needs to help its potential partners understand the opportunity.

That might sound like a scary proposition for a young blog with low traffic scores today.  But remember this.  At some point, consumption of print media will be a small proportion of what is consumed online.  Transparency can help you build trusted relationships with potential commerical supporters today, for the future.

What do you think?  Do you agree?  If not, why not?

Is it wrong to assume that all blogs have a commercial imperative?

Should bloggers be open and transparent about their number of readers, time spent, uniques?

If so, what data should they share?