We Gotta Save Society

I like this Clay Shirky point:

Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism. For a century, the imperatives to strengthen journalism and to strengthen newspapers have been so tightly wound as to be indistinguishable. That’s been a fine accident to have, but when that accident stops, as it is stopping before our eyes, we’re going to need lots of other ways to strengthen journalism instead.

When we shift our attention from ’save newspapers’ to ’save society’, the imperative changes from ‘preserve the current institutions’ to ‘do whatever works.’ And what works today isn’t the same as what used to work.

Speaking of News Pegs...

Lee Billings attempts to connect a top-of-the-ladder(of abstraction) concept -- the failure of interconnected networks of complex systems -- to a bottom-of-ladder, real life, TIMELY!, much-discussed example: the big volcano in Iceland. I think he succeeds. Here are a couple of the nerdiest grafs:

For me, the past week’s events resonated most strongly with a study from Sergey Buldyrev and colleagues that was published in Nature the day before Eyjafjallajökull’s eruption. The researchers investigated catastrophic failures in complex networked systems—systems like the closely coupled infrastructures underlying modern transportation, electricity distribution, telecommunications, and financial transactions. These systems are constructed from many interdependent nodes, which gives them greater stability and resilience: If one node fails, material, money, energy, or people are routed through other nodes, and functionality is maintained. But past a certain critical threshold of node failures, the system fragments and cannot function.

Buldyrev’s team modeled how disruptions percolate through a tightly linked pair of idealized interdependent networks, and found a counter-intuitive result: The failure of even a small number of nodes in one network can cause additional failures in the second. These failures can then feed back into the first network and cause yet more node failures. In other words, the greatest strength of an interdependent network in isolation is also the greatest weakness of interdependent networks as a whole. Two closely linked, highly resilient systems can suffer catastrophic failure through initially small disruptions that would have been essentially harmless to either network individually. What’s true for two linked networks presumably holds for larger assemblages.

Explanation

There has been a fair amount of online discussion and tweeting lately about the "role" of journalism and journalists, specifically in the context of science journalism.

(Some of the most interesting examples, in no particular order: A well-argued essay by Bora Zivkovic, aka @BoraZ, posted on his Scienceblog, a thought-provoking set of interviews with several of today's most visible science journalists by Ontario-based science journalist Colin Schultz, and a fascinating recorded discussion with Andy Revkin, hosted by Chris Mooney and sponsored by the Center for Inquiry)

Let me first say I think writers and readers of science-related content should definitely be engaging in these types of discussions, and hashing out their meanings and repercussions together.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Every time I turn on the television, log-in to the New York Times, cruise around the Twitterverse, or refresh Matt Drudge's report and Josh Marshall's blog, it's clear that peeps and tweeps are walking (or sitting) around carrying at least several different definitions of the word "journalism" in their heads.

How can we have a discussion about journalism's role before we discuss what journalism -- either in general or specifically within the context of science communication -- is? A conversation between a scientist and journalist, about the journalist's role in the communication of science, can be productive only if the interested parties work together to determine a mutually-held definition of the term in question.

So, in the spirit of Explainthis.org, I have opened two questions up to the crowd:

What is journalism?

What is "news"?

The Thing Called Journalism?

One of my favorite things to do is watch for the tweets that provoke/inspire me, and then respond, with the goal of repaying the favor. Last night, I had this exchange with Andy Revkin of the New York Times:

@Revkin tweeted:@mtobis nearly right saying "science journalism in future will mostly be conducted by scientists." Sub "communication" for "journalism."

I responded: @Revkin so what happens to journalism then?

He then answered: @mike_orcutt Journalism is shrinking slice of growing communication pie. Media that survive will expand beyond the thing called journalism.

Ok. But what exactly is this "thing called journalism" that you refer to, Mr. Revkin? And are you saying the term will eventually go away?

Look, I'm all for moving forward with the discussion about scientists, journalists, and their respective "roles" in communicating science to the public. But first, let's make sure we who are invested in this discussion are making the same assumptions about the word "journalism." That way the conversation will be more productive.

Data Viz

As this really smart Economist piece points out, we suddenly live in a vast universe of data, but most of it is just piling up because we don't yet know how to "extract wisdom" from it.

Well, in my experience, wisdom often comes from visualization, which is why I think data visualization is an essential piece of the new media DNA. A big part of the future of journalism, says Jay Rosen, is explanation. Context! Data visualization is pure explanation, pure context, instant wisdom.

Here's a perfect example. One of the major narratives designed to undermine renewable energies is is that they only exist because of a huge amount of federal financial assistance. That is true, but it's leaving out a big piece of the story. If a reporter relies only on that narrative he or she is doing a disservice to the reader. A story about subsidies for renewables is not giving the reader enough context if it does not mention that fossil fuels get much MORE federal assistance. And this handy little pie chart can make us instantly wise to the fact!


(source: Environmental Law Institute)

What is the future of data visualization as web journalism content? What was that thing that Buzz Lightyear said?

No, really though, projections are always tough. But I think it's a safe bet that data viz is gonna sell. Swing over to Katie Peek's blog, and I'm sure she can fill you in better than I can.

Linkage, Self-promotion

The most valuable feature of online communication is the link. Think of the web as another outer space, and imagine your laptop screen is the porthole through which you view the planets, stars, asteroids, and comets flying by as you propel yourself through the space. Links are units of propellant. Nothing is more valuable than fuel.

Bloggers should use links to back up their novel facts and terms, and to give readers access to more context for the viewpoints they express in their posts. Obviously, links aren't sources in the sense that a human being who gives a reporter new information is a one. But they are still sources because they can provide additional layers of context, and make a blogger accountable.

Give me the links!

Links are social media currency. Hype a good link to 150 pairs of eyeballs and a few of the brains behind those eyeballs will decide to click. Maybe one of them will pass it on to their own network of eyeball pairs. Now the link has a life of it's own. Who knows how far it will travel, how may networks it will infiltrate. Maybe it will (gasp!) go viral.

All that being said, here's a link-rich post I wrote recently for Scienceline.

Q&A With Shea Gunther

I caught up with eco-blogger and entrepreneur Shea Gunther, who currently blogs for Mother Nature Network, and he was generous enough to share his insights on the state of the green blogging ecosystem. He was also gracious enough to give props to good reporting, which I personally found encouraging. Gunther is a proven online-business starter, and professional blogger -- he knows what's up with the green web. Check it.

Q: What drives you as a blogger?

Shea Gunther: I like sharing things that I find. Pretty much for as long as I've consumed media I've been the guy sending off an email to someone saying, "Hey, I thought you might like this." I started blogging before it was called blogging, back in 2001 or 2002. You can actually go to Archive.org and search sheagunther.org and you can still see some of the posts-- random thoughts and links and whatnot. Blogging just suits the way that I'm wired, and the fact that I've been able to find a way to make a living blogging is miraculous. Being a blogger is awesome.

Q: What are you working on right now?

SG: I write for Mother Nature Network, two posts a day, Monday through Friday. And about month ago I started working with a company that's kind of like a green Costco. There will be an online club, and you'll be able to browse through different categories and search, and buy green products, and members will get a 20-40% discount compared to regular retail. I'm writing the social media plan, so it's my job to figure out how we're going to use blogs, Facebook, and how we're going to create relationships with bloggers. It's kind of like building a marketing department.

Q: When did you to become an "eco-entrepreneur"?

SG: The first green company I started was in 2001--I started Renewable Choice Energy, which is now one of the bigger wind credit companies.

Q: What inspired that company?

SG: When I was 21 I started a dot-com at the end of the bubble, and a buddy and I raised $16 million for a project that was basically like Youtube too early. That was at the end of the 90s. After two years of working on that, a couple friends and I moved to Colorado. We knew we wanted to start something, but we weren't quite sure what. So we spent 9 months thinking about that, and we came up with this idea for a wind credit company. And this was only about 6 months after the whole concept of wind credits came about. The protocol was really new, so we just started the company.

Q: What did you do after that project?

SG: I spent a year working as a freelance graphic designer, and then I started a green design marketing and ad agency. I spent a year doing that, and made about every mistake a person can make running a business, and ended up driving it into the ground. Then I moved back to Maine and co-founded Green Options, which is a green blog network.

Q. What was the original intent of Green Options?

SG: Well, originally I was contacted by David Anderson, the other founder, who had come across a blog post of mine and decided to contact me. He had an idea of building an online application that makes it easy for people to figure out how solar panels would work in their house. You could just punch in their address, and it would tell you things, like, you have this much sunshine, and this is what your rebate would be, and stuff like that--it told people how long it was going to take make a return on their investment. My idea was to build a green blog around it to give it credibility. Originally it wasn't a network, it was just Green options. I just hired all of my friends, all the prominent, top green bloggers, so it wasn't that hard to build a strong stable of writers.

Q: How would you describe the green blogging landscape right now?

SG: Right now it's interesting. Treehugger was always the considered the big green blog. And it spawned so many different blogs that did the same thing -- maybe a little different this way or that. And in that environment, all of these one-man shops and small blogs were able to find a niche and grow. For example, if you look Ecogeek, by Hank Green. He blogs about Greeen Technology, and no one does it better. Or take a look at ecorazzi.com, run by Michael d'Estries, which is green celebrity news. So over the years these types of bloggers have been able to build these really cool, well traveled sites. But in the last year, some of the bigger corporate money has entered the scene--like Hearst media with The Daily Green. The Discovery Channel owns TreeHugger, and now they have Planet Green. And the company that I work for, The Mother Nature Network, they're in an acquiring mood. They bought the web content of Plenty Magazine, which went under. So, in a couple years there's definitely going to be more consolidation, and a lot of these one-man shops are going to be swept up by bigger fish.

Q: Do you think some of these media networks might start featuring some real reporting, to supplement the blogging?

SG: I would hope so. I know if I were going to start a media site right now, real reporting would definitely be part of the mix. There's always going to be blog networks because it's so easy. It takes a lot less time to produce a couple posts per day than it does to do a bunch of in-depth reporting. But real reporting is able to get you above the echo chamber fray.

High-Frequency Novelty Production, Stock, Flow, and Truth

I agree with this recent anonymous answerer on Explainthis.org (I'm pretty sure it's Ed Yong): the blogger vs. journalist trope is downright exhausted. Obviously, the term blog does not refer to the journalistic integrity of blog posts, or bloggers. In the context of journalism, blog shouldn't imply anything but high-frequency novelty production. If you are not telling the truth with your novelty, you are not a journalist. The same is true for microblogs. How much novel truth are you telling?

A good reporter-blogger is like a really good museum tour guide--the one whose tour keeps growing as randoms that happen to overhear can't help but join the group. If you are still trying to figure out what I mean, read Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo for a week. Marshall manages to combine his knowledge of the insider games with clear-headed writing style to produce a consistently enlightening flow of truthful, digestible information packets.

Truth is truth, whether it's a marathon New Yorker piece or a 128-character explanation + link. Twitter is not about telling people what you are doing, it's about sharing truth. NYU professor Jay Rosen says he uses Twitter for "mindcasting." I'm not sure that's exactly what I do, but it's something like that. When I was a kid, I would get hyper when I found certain new facts in my picture books about dinosaurs, constellations, and germs, and would immediately feel the urge to run and tell one of my parents, my sister, or whoever I happened to see first. That pattern of behavior has never really gone away, and that's why I love Twitter.

Robin Sloan's stock and flow analogy is apt:

"Flow is the feed. It’s the posts and the tweets. It’s the stream of daily and sub-daily updates that remind peo­ple that you exist.

Stock is the durable stuff. It’s the con­tent you pro­duce that’s as inter­est­ing in two months (or two years) as it is today. It’s what peo­ple dis­cover via search. It’s what spreads slowly but surely, build­ing fans over time."

The new journalist must not only navigate job-less waters, he or she must also always be balancing stock and flow--a feat that's lot easier said than done. I'm trying to wire my brain so it will think in terms of stock and flow at the same time. Sometimes it works, but often it just leaves me with a headache.

Preemptive FAQ

Q: What is the point of this project?
A: This virtual space is a requirement for my graduate school seminar called "Entrepreneurial Journalism." Beyond that, it's inspired by the idea that humans have the capacity to completely re-imagine things.

At the moment, thoughtful people are re-imagining all kinds of things. For example, synthetic biologists are re-imagining energy production, while creative young journalists are busy re-imagining the news media.

"All I'm saying is, free your mind," said my professor Adam Penenberg (an entrepreneurial journalist himself) in class last week, "You can create a new art form."

So I guess the point is I'd like to try and do that.

Q: WTF does "meta-morph" mean?
A: Meta-morph is a made-up verb, built out of two conceptual bricks: metamorphosis and metacognition.

Brick 1, Metamorphosis: Today's technology allows individuals to mine vast amounts of discreet, meaningful packets of information, and instantly distribute them throughout multiple extensive social networks. It's too early to tell what it all means exactly, but one thing is for sure: as the way we research, communicate, and collaborate transforms, our brains and minds are changing in response. Our individual and collective thought processes are undergoing some sort of metamorphosis. What will climb out of the cocoon?

Brick 2, Metacognition: In this February 2009 article from Seed, science writer Jonah Lehrer explains how the human tendency to think about how you think has "immense practical value." In fact, some researchers believe if we examine our tendencies, we may be able to figure out how to avoid certain types of seemingly unavoidable mistakes. As Lehrer puts it, "Although the mind is full of flaws, we can learn to outsmart them."

So how do the bricks come together? In a theory: to be keenly aware of the strengths, weaknesses, and idiosyncrasies of the mind (individual or collective), is to be better equipped to re-imagine -- and then to meta-morph -- the way it makes decisions, especially given the vast information stores and transformative communications technology that can be applied toward this goal.

This project is a multimedia-based attempt to apply this theory practically, and to show how it manifests itself in the real world four-way intersection of science, business, politics, and journalism. I guess we'll have to see what happens.

If this post strikes you as mere psychobabble, don't be discouraged. From here on out it's about the content. This was just the concept car.

Meta-morph it.

(Photo Credit: chekabuje, Flickr)