AR&D - Audience Research and Development

Terry Heaton's PoMo Blog    

08/12/2006 Entry: "One man's waste is another's plenty"

An old friend of mine who runs a TV station said the other day, "I just don't get the attraction (of social media)." This is a tough one for established people to understand, and it is especially difficult for those in media. To my friend -- and many people like him -- social media sites (e.g. MySpace) are a colossal waste of time.

It is nearly impossible for the enfranchised to understand what motivates the disenfranchised, because -- and I'm writing from a social perspective -- the lenses of the enfranchised are fixed on that which furthers their citizenship, not on the efforts of those trying to gain entry into the club. And this is nothing new, but what is new is the shifting of power through knowledge made possible by technology. This is the "new thing under the sun" that our generation is witnessing -- the revolution of those who'd rather create their own citizenship than follow the traditional path guarded by the elite.

Postmodern "citizens" view the institutions of our world as self-serving and favoring the enfranchised. They see through the command and control mechanisms of the culture, and technology is giving them the opportunity to create their own. The seeming random nature of this blinds modernist thinkers into the belief that it is small and irrelevant, but in the postmodern world, that which seems chaotic is often not, and this is why I think the next four years will be VERY interesting politically in this country.

Let me repeat something I've written about previously: the structure of the web -- with its associative links -- forces people into the postmodern exercise of deconstruction. Even with the finest varnish available, bullshit is revealed through the process of deconstruction, so it's harder for the ruling elite to make self-serving statements seem applicable to the general welfare of everybody.

Beyond the intellectual speculation, there are some very practical reasons people get involved in the social media space. They can. It's easy. It's a community. People can interact. It feels safe, because superficial judging is often missing. It is a meritocracy, of sorts, and everybody has the same opportunity to seduce, promote or influence. It's a place to grow, to test waters, to show off, to be somebody, and how do you put a value on that?

They make friends and learn about life. It's a very real community and has its own wants and needs in terms of news and information -- most of which its citizens provide themselves. They'll link to a traditional media article, but they'll be more interested in what each other has to say than "the media."

And this comes from an essential postmodern understanding: PoMos trust each other more than they do "experts," because the experts, it turns out, are only in it for themselves -- and they're quite often wrong. You can argue the merits and demerits of this type of thinking, but this is the reality that all institutions face today. As Jay Rosen says, "The nature of authority is changing." Who goes to the doctor today, for example, and receives a diagnosis without looking it up on the web? Many people go to the doctor's office already prepared. The doctor is still the doctor, but the NATURE of his authority (it used to be absolute) has changed. The same is true on many levels as knowledge that used to be owned and protected by the educated elite becomes available at the click of a mouse.

And so people are increasingly turning to each other for information. Think of an expanding circle of influence, beginning with those closest (sometimes family, sometimes not). In the postmodern world, people gravitate to their tribes for input, and the tribal unit itself is hard for the enfranchised to understand. A postmodern tribe doesn't necessarily identify itself as such, because each tribe exists to serve the individual who determines the make-up of his or her tribe. You may know you're a part of someone's tribe, but you may not. This drives the logical mind insane.

The personal media revolution (let us never forget to thank J.D. Lasica for that moniker) is just that, and it's liable to get very messy in the years ahead. For those of us in media, we need to be paying close attention. And the only way to do that is to get involved. What looks like a waste of time today might be the center of our media strategy in the future.

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/103/playbook-gem.html

Posted by Lyss @ 08/14/2006 09:40 AM CST

Here's what I'd say to your friend.

All those people out there you call the audience used to have a relationship with you, but not each other. Because that's how TV worked: it connected them to you, but not each other. The Web works in a different way. It can connect those people "up" to you, but it also connects them "across" to one another. Often find they find that horizontal connection more interesting.

Posted by Jay Rosen @ 08/15/2006 09:55 AM CST

nicely put, jay.

i also find that much vigor exists way outside of the relationship between social media and msm. this is driving the revolution(s) forward.
so, yeah the relationship is interesting but it seems besides the point as well ;)
social media is both relevant and independently powerful. with each generation, this can only increase in truth as the grip of msm loosens.

Posted by sull @ 08/15/2006 08:27 PM CST

Wow, what an excellent, intellectual article. It would seem the old guard is in the best position to embrace SM, and use it to provide even deeper content and a true voice on a local level. Whether they will is yet to be seen.

Posted by Steven Cox @ 08/16/2006 09:21 AM CST

What's a "true voice?????" The old guard better understand that "deeper content" and "true voice" are easily understood as code for B.S.

Posted by Randy Hoffman @ 08/16/2006 06:15 PM CST