The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell. An extremely good read on the power of word-of-mouth in spreading epidemics, be it brand, product, lifestyle, whatever. I finally finished reading this book. It took me awhile because of school and such.
I came upon a stunning idea during the last chapter. The power of the social network is growing ever more in our society. It is becoming the most valuable channel to which we can connect with people. It first began with phone lines. The telephone made communication the epitomy of ease in a time when it took a physical deliverer sometimes months to confirm a message. Telephony evolved into faxing evolved into sms evolved into cellular telephony and email.
Generally in a capitalistic economy value or price rises as quantity falls and vice versa. This is true with every product or service except the "network". In order for a telephone to have value it must be able to call another telephone. Same with faxes, sms, and emails. We need more and more receivers in order to build the network. As the network grows it becomes more and more valuable. Look at MySpace and Facebook and all of the other social networking platforms. The value in the market for each of these are well into the millions and billions of dollars. As the network grows it becomes more powerful, as corporations are often said to become more powerful with additions. However, one may difference between a giant corporation and a giant network [Although arguably they are one in the same only governed by different rule sets.] is that a giant corporation becomes increasingly unstable and difficult to be managed while the network, managed by its users, is completely stable.
Can multi-million dollar corporations learn from the stable network? Maybe but I highly doubt it. Can I learn from the success of the stable network? OF COURSE! In its inherent contradiction of value I give the network the most value. The network decides what is important and not important, relevant and irrelevant, what I can use and can’t use. Hmm… WHAT I CAN USE? An interesting concept. Let’s see here. First I can use mediums, i.e. video, words, audio, and graphics. That seems to encompass most mediums. I can use feedback and connections to spark conversation. Conversation… hmmm… This could be my tool, my paintbrush, my mouse-click, my pencil. Conversation can help me to outline what really matters to the rest of the world, and adapt my message to the content which is relevant. Now my content is relevant. How to spread it? Let’s go back to my mediums. What I am spreading determines my medium. Do people want to hear my message, see my message, or experience my message? I’ll leave it up to them to decide. I am here to provide and facilitate they are here to filter and facilitate. It’s a two way street. It’s the Main Street of information. The Main Street of the future. "Person to Person communications is much bigger than marketing. It is about making the world ours, again." –David Weinberger via Shel Israel
I know… long post. Lots of words. Thanks for reading though. I’ll try to include pics next time to liven things up a bit. –KP
Rolling through my daily reads I came upon a post by Robert Gorell of FutureNow. Newspapers, as I’ve been discussing lately, seem to be leaning toward increasingly irrelevant forms of getting news. Robert brings up an interesting point concerning publishers; are they growing weary of newspapers being given a run for their money by online news and television? One has to wonder if those holding ownership and investment, albeit a great deal of investment as in Warren Buffett’s case, will ultimately be the death of the paper news medium. Are they willing to risk their money to try and hold out against the internet onslaught? Nahhh– They will just convert their paper to pixels. I.e.– see USA Today, embracing the social media craze and a revamped website. But there are others such as philanthropist Eli Broad concerned about the future of newspapers, specifically the L.A. Times, "I believe that a newspaper is a great civic asset and that ownership
is best in the hands of foundations or wealthy families that want to
own it for reasons other than maximizing profits… I also believe newspapers should remain in local hands." See article by USNews.com.
Publishers these days have the assets to keep a newspaper going which is bringing in less than significant numbers. Money makes the world go round. Will their money keep the papers rolling around the world???
More to come later, got some paperwork to get through.
The press and media are peculiar entities. The right to free speech de facto is essentially what it means to be a journalist. The first amendment in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution states, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
In this document, the founders of our country recognized the press as a collaboration independent of government. They are the critics and analyzers of governmental action and non-action. Our freedoms and liberties ensure that we are able to keep the government limited in its powers. We are to be doubtful and skeptical of government because that is what makes this country a democracy. The presumption that our voice will be heard is key to the democratic process. I am not saying that government is wrong but I am saying that power can grow and become an unruly and uncontrollable evil. Limiting government limits the potential of any one group having an excess of power. We call this federalism and under which the separation of powers within the government was based. The press is our method of scanning all that government does and letting the people know how and why their government is acting or not acting. The press is our insider on that which we control. We are the shareholders in this business, the United States of America. The executive officers are the White House and Congress while the media acts as the board of directors. In this way we, as citizens, run this country. If an executive or director does something we don’t like, we first hear about it from the other directors and then take action in the form of a vote to decide what should be done. Now that I’ve reiterated the base of our democratic process… the topic of discussion follows as such.
Being independent of government, what "rights" are specific or should be specific to the press and media? From the perspective of a reporter, they need sources and access in order to obtain their information. The sources may want to remain anonymous or in secret. To the rest of the world the source is supposed to be nothing more than a wayward voice speaking from the darkness. If a journalist reports on criminalities in say government, does the source who "leaked" pertinent information or who acted criminally as a result of government deserve to be held accountable? I am not too sure on this subject. It is difficult to rationalize out a fair answer. If "sources" had no protection they would have no reason to go to media unless they were willing to turn themselves in which in most cases is not the case. These people want to protect their job and family and life. "Sources" who quit going to the media would restrict the flow of information between government and its citizens. The independent voice of the media would no longer exist because it would have no substance to report on. The reporters would no longer have a job. Now this leads me to my next point, that the government needs to have regulations on taking press to court for acquisition of their content.
The journalist would not want to reveal there source because that would break the entire realm of source protection, sources would no longer talk to the press, and reporters/journalists would lose their jobs. Losing there jobs means eliminating the independent criticisms towards government which defines democracy and our country as a whole. The sector which helps us citizens to keep the government in check would be no more. What now is to keep the government from deceiving the citizens? How are we to know which statements from government to believe, which studies to trust, which laws are "good" for us? However, a case which requires the testimony or identity of a source as relevant evidence to a judicial trial is required to present ALL evidence to the courts no matter the severity of submitting such evidence. This exact principle is exercised in the prosecution of Josh Wolfe, a California journalist, who has served 6 months so far in jail for his refusal to submit his video footage of a protest as evidence in a case of civil unrest. His reasons for refusing are that if he were to willingly turn over the video it would be inviting the government to further probe into the identities of his "sources" and others in the video. We all know very well by now that if you give the government an inch, they take a MILE.
Similarly, in the Plame Affair, of which the investigation into the leaked name of an undercover CIA operative, resulted in many reporters being told they must hand over the names of their sources as they were pertinent witnesses to the case. Naturally most of the reporters refused, and one Ms. Judith Miller actually spent 80+ days in prison on account of "protecting her source". The case, which delved into all matters political and ethical, really meant to the reporters that if they gave up their source it would result in a breakdown of the media-government independence. Both Wolfe and Miller fought and are still fighting, Josh is stuck in prison until the proceedings of the grand jury, to keep this journalistic privilege and to protect democracy. The undeniable uniqueness and difficulty of the Plame Affair only brought more in support of each side, government and media, to the floor. Miller claimed that her source informed her that it was alright for her to give the information to the court. Other reporters however reluctantly released their information because of the pressure of jail-time. Many, many cases have involved the press getting hold of confidential information and releasing it to the public. Some that come to mind off hand are the release of the Pentagon Papers during Johnson’s presidency and the media recently releasing information regarding a confidential government wire-tap program enacted in the U.S. with intention to weed out terrorism within the country. In cases such as these the government responded to the media’s content as being unjustified and a breach of national security.
I believe in protection of sources as a testament to journalistic integrity. If a reporter is holding information that is pertinent to a trial it should only be release on grounds of without such would directly endanger lives. I believe that the more I know as a citizen of what my government is doing, especially during a time of war, is the greatest service I would be able to do for my country. I also believe that my privacy is sacred and protected within the rights of the constitution, meaning unless a court ordered warrant is provided to me no one is able to violate my privacy. Whether or not I have something to hide is not of relevance, it is the rule and making exceptions to the rule leaves room for more exceptions in the future. I will state it again, give them an inch and they take a mile.
Stay tuned for more discussion on the rights of privacy and what effect it has on business today.
The concept of a generation of young people ushering in a time of
change is on many minds these days. I can honestly say that I am
embracing this endeavor in order to further the progression of our
world. A young person living and breathing a world of community and
innovation is key. I see this young man or woman challenging the once
stable precendents laid down in areas of medical care, social security,
immigration, and public policy as a whole. Shel states:
It
is true that this new generation has little need for television,
newspapers, magazines, and in some cases books. The internet is the new
mall, the new bowling alley, the new playground. It is where those, who
so recently have been able to influence the greatest of minds and
businesses, gather to share ideas and information. YouTube is growing
larger and larger everyday. Until a few months ago I was using YouTube
merely to view interesting videos; now I link videos to friends and
colleagues in an effort to spread a message. Social media is taking
this world by storm and the users, the "New Now" generation, are
feeding it ever more.
I can honestly say as a young person myself that I cannot help but
notice the passion and drive in my peers and even in myself to change
and progress as a community of humans. Humanity is the key and we
realize this. With the onset of green technology and policy reform, the
next step may even be a worldwide social equity reform. We are all
linked across the country and across the globe via social networks such
as Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, LinkedIn, and the rest of the
blogosphere. A growing community of diverse minds and spirits are in
store for the coming years.
Long post, I know. Leave some comments and link away. I’d appreciate it as a beginner in this blogging world. –KP
Wow Chrysler... Way to spend $10mil on 90 seconds! Longest Clint Eastwood speech ever. If he was selling anything but Chrysler id buy it http://www.twitter.com/krispatel19 hours ago