Welcome to the Glass Room
2010 was a year of information explosions around the world that have set governments reeling. From Beijing to Washington those in power are being held to account by a new generation of digital watchdogs. But are Internet-inspired instrument uprisings a short-term spark or can they be part of a long-term environmental change?
I agree with Internet enthusiast Clay Shirky that blogs, mobile phones, email, Youtube and the rest can be tools for protest, advocacy and resistance. From Twitter to Wikileaks, they provide an unprecedented power to activate and organise. “Communicative freedom is good for political freedom” as Shirky puts it.
But as Shirky is also finding out, authoritarian regimes also use the same technologies to identify and clamp down on protest. And they are getting much better at blocking the most overt online activists.
So if governments like America want to encourage freedom of expression as part of developing democracy then they need to move from what Shirky calls instrumental to environmental use of new media.
The old model of an independent Fourth Estate has not yet been replaced but it is broken. Around the world we see that mainstream journalism is not up to the job of ‘speaking truth unto power’. It must now work with the people not simply on their behalf. And the people are now doing it for themselves as well.
Those working in media for development will recognise this model of networked journalism. It combines ideas of community media with public journalism. It is about building capacity for media to act as a platform. But it is also about fostering media literacy amongst people and civil society organisations to enable them to understand and use the new communications technologies for themselves.
What is fascinating about how this works in the Internet age is that the old divisions between developed and developing world are breaking down. Of course there is still a massive digital divide and disparities in resources as well as differences in media conditions. But all societies are presented with the same challenge by the ubiquity, scale and personalisation of digital communications. In theory, we can now all communicate about everything all the time. So what are the rights and responsibilities of those creating this networked mediation?
In theory, governments, businesses and civil society organisations such as iNGOs can now be totally transparent and communicate their work in an open and interactive way. So in practice how do we make that happen and how far can it go? Welcome to what World Economic Forum President Klaus Schwab called 'the glass room'. In theory we can all see what everyone is doing. Can we make that a reality? Do we want to?
CHARLIE BECKETT
Director , POLIS, LSE
www.polismedia.org
www.charliebeckett.org
Twitter: @charliebeckett
Comments
The Glass Room
I agree with many of your sentiments. However, there is a way of making the same points that would lead us down the alley of devaluing the importance of journalism - a process that is hardly evident in the information outputs of non-professionals with a smart phone or digital camera in hand.
It is also a point that can see traditional media losing some of its claims to important freedoms. In my country, Trinidad and Tobago, freedom of the press is an explicit right in addition to broad freedom of expression.
You case can be pushed to the point where this discrete freedom is viewed as superfluous and therefore unnecessary.
Wesley Gibbings
President
Association of Caribbean Media Workers
The Glass Room
Hi Wesley,
You make an important point in your comment. I would agree. What I am saying in the article is that the new forms of journalism - like Wikileaks - work best when networked into the best of existing news organisations.
And this is a great way to build capacity through media for development. Instead of always trying to create separate news organisations we should harness the new forms - such as 'amateur' producers - to bolster overall production and engagement,
regards
Charlie Beckett
cracks in the glass room
. . .
Asking what we do "in practice" to handle life in the "glass room" is the stand-out question here.
For journalists, an answer must include adhering to a code of ethics. This is in contrast to organisations like Fox News which not only flout basic rules of journalism, but apparently don't have any of their own.
A search of the Fox News reveals discussion about a code of ethics for doctors, lawyers and even paedophiles, but not Fox News itself. As the second leading source of news in the world's biggest, most powerful military economy, Fox News might be expected to highlight a code that ensures adherence its alleged policy of being "fair and balanced".
Yeah. Right.
Should we be harsh with Fox News? Or on journalism for that matter?
Let's look at a comparative field like investment banking and advice services, where there are a multitude of codes, rules and regulations. Investment bankers and advisers assess, analyse and "report" back to "readers" - their clients.
Interviewed by the Motley Fool, Justin Urquhart Stewart said this about 2010, in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis:
"I think that the most, brightest remark this year was from actually Her Majesty the Queen, when she went to the London School of Economics and she said, 'You turn out economists, graduate economists, every single year. Was it not possible, with all your professors and doctors here, that one of you could have anticipated what was going to happen?' The answer was, 'We'll get back to you, ma'am.' Five months later, they got back to her, and the answer was, 'No.'"
So the question here is: if bankers and all their codes and rules and regulations can get it so wrong, to the tune of many trillions, is there really that much point in agonising over a lack of a code of ethics when such a thing seems no guarantee of "fair and balanced" behaviour.
LINKS
Code of ethics for child molestors
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262700,00.html
........................
www.journalismcrisis.org
........................
Can we re-conceptualise the glass room?
We talk about new media as if these are communication channels which everyone have access to or feel comfortable using. In my country between 12 and 15% of people have access to internet. Mobile phones are widely used but not necessarily with the sophisticated features that enable "all to communicate about everything all the time". A good start to mending the broken (or is it just evolving?) Fourth Estate is, like Charlie Beckett says, for journalists to work with, instead of on behalf of people. BUT doesn't this imply a fundamental shift in the way journalists perceive of their own identity as "working for" and also a fundamental shift in the way citizens perceive their own identity as recipients of media? It may require a re-conceptualisation of the political work of journalists AND the political work of citizens - and indeed what political work means - to build new habits of media work; regardless of the medium of the message.
Of course there is a digital
Of course there is a digital divide but don't measure it in absolute figures. You say 'only 15%' have access in your country. Well that is a very significant amount of people - each one probably connects to many others who are offlline as well. For a media to catalyse change it does not need mass markets. Think how few people listen to radio or read newspapers in some countries - it doesn't mean those platforms were not influential. My point is that the new media technologies are best used WITH traditional forms of communication.
I certainly agree with you about reconceptualising journalism as working with people not for them or to create a product. Networked journalism assumes that you have this attitude because you want to share the process with the public. If as a journalist you want them to value your work, then you have to do something for them!
- Log in to post comments