Archives for posts with tag: O’Reilly

“So does wikileaks represent the end of an age of journalism?”

Andrew Walk­ing­shaw asked me this as about 11pm on Sunday night as we waited for our flight to Newark.

“Or is it the start of a new type of journalistic construct?” was my response.

Without missing a beat, Andrew replied, “Isn’t that the same thing?”

Looking back, it’s hard to think of a conversation that took place at NewsFoo that didn’t eventually get to Wikileaks. People debated every possible aspect of the story, from the responsibility of papers working with Assange to address his political goals as outlined in his manifesto ((I realize that it’s called the Wikileaks Manifesto, but it’s difficult, if not impossible, to separate the site from the individual)), to what is the responsibility of news organizations to monitor and call attention to the lack of transparency in Wikileaks’ processes and operation. Needless to say, while some minds were swayed and some new areas of consideration opened, nothing was settled.

As an outside to journalism looking in (the job of the anthropologist), the Wikileaks discussion is about a fundamental change in journalism from an institutional model to an “assemblage” model. By that I mean that instead of news being mediated by a single large institution (say the New York Times of old), the assemblage model is one in which a network of actors, including media institutions and new players such as Wikileaks, collaborate in releasing stories.

Visualize a Sonic Boom

Just before an airplane breaks the sound barrier, sound waves become visible on the wings of the plane. The sudden visibility of sound just as sound ends is an apt instance of that great pattern of being that reveals new and opposite forms just as the earlier forms reach their peak performance. (Marshall  Mcluhan, Understanding Media, pg 12)

This is exactly the sort of thing that I think McLuhan was getting at in the above quote. The constant discussion of Wikileaks, and the resulting cognitive friction is caused by, can be read as, a moment in which journalism is breaking through a barrier, transitioning from a moment of individual institutions to assemblages,

A range of social scientists and philosophers have argued that there are fundamental differences between the two forms. The institution is (somewhat) fixed, centralized, and lasting, while the assemblage is more fluid, distributed, and ephemeral.

So, for example, the assemblage blurs the line between sources and journalists, not allowing the two to be easily separated. Typically, in the institutional case, the source is hidden, or is at most treated as a somewhat neutral party in the production of the report. They give the reporter their information and then step away. In the assemblage case, the source ((admittedly, one could argue that Wikileaks isn’t a source but a mediator for the as-of-yet unknown individuals who leaked the encrypted documents…. This argument in itself notes the blurring of roles)) publicly  stands beside the news organization(s) in the report. From this perspective, the also share in the cultural power & prestige that comes from the final product.

As suggested in the opening exchange, we don’t know if we’re leaving or arriving, and perhaps we’re doing both. Either way, it’s unclear what the future of journalism will look like and whatever it will be will be worked out in part through experiments and debates such as this one.

Just before an airplane breaks the sound barrier, sound waves become visible on the wings of the plane. The sudden visibility of sound just as sound ends is an apt instance of that great pattern of being that reveals new and opposite forms just as the earlier forms reach their peak performance. (Marshall  Mcluhan, Understanding Media, pg 12]

Walter Cronkite School of Journalism

This weekend, I had the honor of taking part in the inaugural O’Reilly News Foocamp. Sitting here, in my office at Cornell, looking out on a snowy quad, it’s hard to believe that just a few hours ago I was wandering the streets of Phoenix Arizona in the 70 degree sun-shine, engaging in discussions about the future of the news. Looking over my pages of raw field notes, I’m not quite sure where to begin to summarize the experience. Well, that’s not quite true. The best place to start is by answering what News Foo was. For that, I turn to a tweet from Steve Buttry (with a little bit of editing):

#newsfoo was News Foo Camp, an informal, cross-discipline discussion of the future of news, organized by O’Reilly Media [hosted by Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism, and sponsored by Google and the Knight Foundation].

Steve’s post gives us a definition for the camp, but I’m not sure it defines it. Most of my thought time on the flight(s) back from Arizona was spent turning that question over and over in my head. How do I try and capture the experience of Foo?

A step towards the answer came in the form of a tweet that was posted about the camp by an observer (again with my edits):

This weekend [#newsfoo] seems an apt example of “thinkers” versus makers. Contrast (#newsfoo) with (#tohack).

To me, this tweet, which appeared as part of an exchange critical of New Foo, completely gets and completely misses the point of the event. This post (the first of a few on News Foo) is going to meditate on two linked ideas from the weekend: philosophy and friction.

What O’Reilly and its partners did was work to open up a space for thinking about the process of creating the (future of) news. Nothing could be more representative of this than a session that Tim O’Reilly ran on Sunday Morning called “Do news organizations need a staff philosopher?” As Tim reminded us, philosophy is not and should not be made into an abstract process. Instead it is a constant attempt to understand the new realities that we are creating (and that are being created around us) every day. It is the question of how we continue to exist and act within the world.

Philosophy, when it loses its grounding can often descend into navel gazing (hence those critical scare quotes around thinkers in the above tweet). So the question was how to keep us from going down that path. The answer to this was friction. That said, overall, I think there was more than enough friction at News Foo to make the vast majority of sessions productive.

Friction as a concept/value was invoked throughout the weekend. Participants were encouraged to push back on accepted ideas. So, for example, David Cohn asked the question “If the news industry was to disappear tomorrow, and people continued getting information that gave them the news, would this be a bad thing?” Heck, there was even a panel called “Convince me why I should read the news each day.”

And note, that it was journalists and media people who were asking the antithesis: “why should we (as a culture) care if the news (industry) changes?

Getting back to the topic of philosophy, Hegel (and Marx after him) proposed the dialectical model of inquiry: thesis (news is a good thing and something that should be sustained) is met with antithesis (why should we care if the news industry goes away tomorrow if people can still get information about the world) to reach synthesis (this is what is valuable about the service of the news). It seems to me that much of News Foo was spent considering the middle part of that particular equation, asking the antithesis.

A few things often get lost in discussions of the dialectic. First is that it isn’t an instantaneous process, philosophy (like any science) is played out over time. Interpretive reasoning is not instant. Secondly, it’s not a linear process. You don’t just start and stop it. Rather, each new synthesis is in itself a new thesis, the start of a new dialectic. Think of it more in terms of concentric spirals that can move up or down, inwards or outwards. Sticking with the spiraling metaphor for a moment, not unlike a tornado, the dialectic can pull new information and ideas into itself. It can also forcefully spin off ideas. Finally, the dialectic (tornadoes, and change for that matter) tends to be messy and unpredictable. The same is true for News Foo.

Messy and unpredictable, that’s not a value judgment — nor is it a statement on the organization of foo or facility (both of which were amazing). In fact, I think that this controlled chaos was a good thing. The messiness seems to me to be a reflection of the current state of the news. As journalist Quinn Norton put it, this is the first Foo held around an Industry/Way of Life that is in crisis. By opening up a space for thinking, for that messiness, News Foo gave its participants an opportunity to reflect on this larger moment that we are at.

So, for example, it was a chance to see that there’s still not a lot of agreement, across disciplines that are now working on the news, about what is meant by terms like context, transparency, reporting, and journalism. While definitions may seem like small issues, the nature of software is that many of these ideas get, quite literally, coded into a platform and its interface. Technology isn’t neutral in that respect. And so an upfront understanding of the perspectives from where different actors are building from helps contextualize the work that they are doing.

Likewise, no one I talked to had a polished answer to the aforementioned question of why the news industry should be sustained – what is the value in journalism. But, given that the dialectic is something that is as much lived as anything else, it seems to me that the answers for that question are going to be sought in the days to come in each individual’s daily practice. As Tim O’Reilly suggested, the answers come through living and struggling the philosophy, not just putting it in a missing statement.

All of this isn’t to say that sessions didn’t spend time in the trenches. Quite literally, a number of the talks were about the sharing of war stories (and a future post will be specifically about that). More importantly, a number of those talks also backed up their discussions with data – the presentation by the Guardian’s Meg Pickard was apparently one example of this. The most tweeted Ignite talk, by the brilliant ((seriously, in an airport discussion, Andrew Walkingshaw made a understandable and convincing argument for why misapplied metaphors from Quantum Mechanics have had a negative influence on how we approach scientific knowledge, and how Hysteresis is a better metaphor for changes in the world)) Andrew Walkingshaw used real world data to model the size and (economic) value of the journalism industry to provide a “good enough” context to allow us to frame the problem.

Ultimately, though, News Foo was a “thinking” event versus a “making” one. That makes quantifying its effect much more difficult than at Hack Day (which it was being compared against). That said, I’m not sure why we need to be comparing the two. It seems that much like separating “thinkers” from makers, all that’s doing is creating a false (and easy) binary – a system that ultimately is lacking in productive friction. I wasn’t in the session that Tom Coates‘ tweet was critical of – though from what I’ve heard about it, I support the issues he took with it. As for Tom’s critique of the section, in some ways that seems in keeping with the weekend’s theme of productive friction – in the end It may have a greater effect than anything said in that discussion (provided we keep that particular conversation going).

Ok, ’nuff for now. I’ll blog a bit more specifics on News Foo (from an anthropologist’s perspective tomorrow).

Other Takes on News Foo:

Presenters and attendees at this year’s O’Reilly Tools of Change for Publishing conference spent a  discussing the topics of social reading and community. One constant question was are these spaces that Amazon or Google will own? A week after the fact, and drawing on my experiences with online community at, I’ve come up with the following assessment:

In this area, Amazon’s further ahead than Google, but I’m not sure that either is really in the right place (or could be the right service) for this to work. The reasons for this is that they’re fundamentally in the same business:

Connecting people with content

The sustainable community model is:

Connecting people through content

Amazon is arguably further along because they’ve fore fronted the approach of “Connecting people with content through other people.” Amazon makes you aware of other people asynchronously browsing the
content (with things like reviews and other people like you have bought). But there’s no concerted effort to connect you with those people. For example, you can submit reviews, but you’re not necessarily encouraged to engage in a discussion of reviews (though a threaded system of some sort). Likewise you can create lists, but not comment on lists. And while Amazon has discussion boards, they’re buried well below the fold line of the page (and beneath all the relevant content).

In Google’s case, those other people and what they do are a hidden aspect of the algorithm. Using Google is currently (gmail, gtalk, and latitude excluded) a solitary experience. While everyone is using it, you are not made aware of them (this concelment of the everpresent other is perhaps why Google can get away with more privacy things than Facebook).

Now all that said, as we learned at, its far easier to get people to discuss a given topic a a site organized around that topic than it is to get them to talk about a topic at a site organized around the medium that enables that topic. In plain language, people are far more likely to talk about photos of their baby at rather than in a “babies” forum/community at

Just as the photo was just a medium for the content (the baby) that connected, so to is the book another medium for the content that connects people. This is definitely an area where publisher and genre sites have an immediate advantage (provided they have to tools to do it).

None of this is to suggest that google or Amazon couldn’t overcome this. But it would take a lot more work than is immediately apparent (and take them outside of their current business models).