Dr. Bugeja responds

I posted last month about a talk I had heard by Dr. Bugeja from Iowa State. He responded in a comment, and I thought I would pull his remarks deserved to be pulled-out and given more prominence. I very much appreciate his response and enjoy the good nature of his reply. I enjoy honest discourse. Thank you Dr. Bugeja.

I also appreciate, but will decline his offer for a free book. I will purchase it and read it, however. I'm interested in the topic, and I'm sure it will be an excellent read.

Michael Bugeja said...

Thanks for mentioning my research. The quote that you selected as a citation fairly represents my viewpoint.

There is an implication that the publicity about Interpersonal Divide somehow is unethical, and that concerns me greatly, in as much as I am a media ethicist. I also am a journalist, and I prefer facts. Here are a few:

1. Iowa State University is a landgrant university. As such, researchers are expected to give speeches to organizations and otherwise interact with groups when summoned. Perhaps the speech you attended was the most recent one I have to ISU Extension. Honoraria for such excursions usually are boxed lunches, such as I received earlier this month at this event. Sometimes I do get honoaria for outside consulting on ethics codes and the like, but I take vacation days for them and do most in the summer. (For instance, I was a scholar in residence in 2005 in another state). Also, if the organization is large enough, I might suggest a donation to our student scholarship fund, as I did with the ISU Veterinary Medicine Alumni Association. In sum, I give far more many free speeches and scholarship-based ones than I ever do on my own time consulting with universities on ethics codes or journalism associations on the state of the news media.

2. My book Interpersonal Divide was researched between 1999-2004 and predicted the culture that we now have before it arrived. That's why it is cited by most major media around the world. Iowa State University is a research institution; thus, it makes public research that has been dubbed noteworthy, as a message to taxpayers that its employees are making an impact on society, especially since our official name is Iowa State University of Science and Technology. The publicity results in more presentations, which I enjoy because I can interact with people face to face rather than what I am doing now, via Internet.

3. I don't teach, so I don't assign my books to classes, although my books have been used at Iowa State. Although Interpersonal Divide is one of the most cited books in the Oxford Univ. Press line, it has sold fewer than 1000 copies. I believe, when returns were counted, it sold 6 copies between January and July 2007. That's because the work introduces a new theory--interpersonal divide--and is a research book rather than a textbook. In other words, you can find it in libraries but not typically in the classroom.

More on text books: My How-To News Writer, which you might read--just send me an address to my email account, and I will send you a free copy--is sold to students throughout Iowa and the country. I donate all my royalties--which amount to $7 per book because the Iowa Newspaper Association published it--to our First Amendment Fund. So far I have not raised $25,000 through donated royalties, but when we do reach that figure, we can endow the account and then give students scholarships, about $1,000 per year. I would appreciate it if you would review the How-To News Writer on High Touch because it is for a worthy cause, explaining the basics of fact-based journalism while benefiting students.

Finally, it's up to your viewers to discern whether I'm a jerk for questioning why six media companies--Time Warner, Viacom, Bertelsmann, News Corporation, Disney and General Electric--have been allowed to dominate the news because of technology (as well as four new media companies--AOL, Google, Yahoo and MSN--which account for about 50% of the online ad revenue). I may be misguided as well for associating the student loan scandal with the typical digital gadgets that keep amassing student debt through iPods, cell phones and laptops, all of which take credit cards sponsored by banks making deals with alumni and other university-based associations; but I point this out because I care about students and want them to be able to explicate the motive of the interface or application so as to make an independent decision on use rather than a spontaneous purchase online.

However others may label me for my questions about technology, either accurate or inaccurate, I accept that, because we have the First Amendment, which I am using now to partially correct the record of your post--appreciating that you chose an excerpt that accurately voices my chief concern.

Facing the reality of new media

David Weinberger points to this post by Donnacha DeLong: Web 2.0 is Rubbish. David does a great job of addressing the substance of the article, Is the Web as weak as its weakest link? I won't go there. Instead I want to address something that I've been thinking about for a while.

So what's wrong with it? Isn't increased participation and feedback from our "users" -- readers and viewers -- a good thing? Of course it is, but the problem with Web 2.0 is not how it introduces these elements to the media, but how it's seen as replacing traditional media.

That's the point. It is not "seen as replacing traditional media". It absolutely is replacing traditional media, and every other form of "expert mediated" content production. I just don't see how it matters whether it's rubbish or not. It could be complete crap. So what?

The people have voted with their mouse clicks. What is is. You can bitch and moan, or you can start to think about how you might co-exist in the new-media ecosystem. Longing for the days of old isn't going to save you.

What happens when only the journalism is left?

This sounds like a very interesting conference: Journalism That Matters. I might have to attend. I like the idea of stripping away everything and approaching it like nothing exists: no history, no power structure, no funding, no sacred cows -- what does the organization you build look like?

Pick an ideal location, and start a news organization from scratch, using the best-available technology and ideas, and without the obligations or burdens of legacy processes or infrastructure. Where will it be, what will it look like, who will own it, and how will it run.

Here's what the conference plans to accomplish:

Our key goal: In under 30 hours, we shall start a news organization from scratch.

• Where will it be?
• What will it look like?
• Who will own it?
• How will it run?

I could see an exercise like this being of great value to many of our most cherished institutions. Nothing like a good "what if?" exercise to get the juices flowing.

Citizen Journalism: Assignment Zero

I've been working through this exercise on tagging created by Beth Kanter. The next to the last step of the exercise was to walk through people's tags using pivot browsing:

The metaphor that comes to mind for pivot browsing is walking in the forests or some other open space, stopping to smell the pine, taking a break. You get the lay of the land as you walk around. The point is not just the destination, the point is the journey itself.

This was such a refreshing exercise. Not that I don't spend a ton of time online doing whatever, but it was almost like I needed permission to just click around. I've been perhaps a tad too focused on my del.icio.us subscriptions and the links that my network brings me.

While I was clicking around I came across a bookmark to Assignment Zero provided by Beth Kanter.

Assignment Zero is: Inspired by the open-source movement, this is an attempt to bring journalists together with people in the public who can help cover a story. It's a collaboration among NewAssignment.Net, Wired, and those who choose to participate.

The investigation takes place in the open, not behind newsroom walls. Participation is voluntary; contributors are welcome from across the Web. The people getting, telling and vetting the story are a mix of professional journalists and members of the public -- also known as citizen journalists. This is a model I describe as "pro-am."

The "ams" are simply people getting together on their own time to contribute to a project in journalism that for their own reasons they support. The "pros" are journalists guiding and editing the story, setting standards, overseeing fact-checking, and publishing a final version.

This sounds very cool. I've done a bit of writing for Wikinews and found it enjoyable, but it was more like "rewriting" and aggregrating than reporting. There was also the built-in lag that was to be expected. Where it certainly was possible to do original work it always seemed like a daunting task.

Assignment Zero on the other hand looks very interesting. Here, people are working on doing original work with the help of professionals. They focus on a primary story, and then work together to write it. I also like the idea of being able to start small and wade in:

Have five minutes? Or five hours? Like to research, write, or conduct interviews? Do you have prior journalism experience or none at all? Any way you dice it, we can use your help.

I have to admit that I am intrigued by the whole idea of citizen journalism. I like the emphasis on community and working together. So I registered. I'll keep you posted on how it works. Better yet, come join the effort and experience it yourself.