de.tech.ting

Posts Tagged ‘social media’

Just can't get enough? Follow True/Slant on Facebook and Twitter

Posted by andreaitis on April 5, 2010

Here we are on Facebook:

Friend us.


And don’t miss  all of our Twitterage:

Follow us.

Why?

Every time I think of you I know we have to meet.
And I just can’t get enough.  I just can’t get enough.

[youtubevid id=”1WQRUTITwS4″]

(thank you, everyone)

Posted in technology | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

From fawn to yawn: How social media is killing the awards show

Posted by andreaitis on February 2, 2010

Oscar nominations were announced this morning, and they were as boring as Anne Hathaway’s beige pantsuit.

Announcing 2010 Oscar Nominations.  Y-a-a-a-w-n.

Announcing 2010 Oscar Nominations. Y-a-a-a-w-n.

Sure, the people  who win awards care about them. And the people who are nominated care about them until they don’t win and then they rationalize the superciliousness of awarding one another trinkets for perceived validation.

Aside from the winners and the wanna-be-winners, does anyone one else care anymore?  After nodding off during the Golden Globes and then the Grammys, I’m thinking not so much.  To be fair, most of the Grammy performances were worth watching.  It was the awards part that felt like filler.  T/S’er Leor Galil noticed as well in  Another ‘Grammys are irrelevant’ post.

So, what gives?

Two words:  Social. Media.

That’s right, social media is killing the awards show.    We used to watch awards shows because they were the only chance we had to live vicariously, to see celebrities as themselves or dolled-up versions of themselves.  We could relate — Sandra Bullock winning a Golden Globe is kind of like when I came in third place during that district spelling bee in 5th grade.   Dressed up?  Check.  Trophy presented?  Check.  Accomplishment recognized?  Double check.

But now, I no longer need to wait for an awards show to get an intimate glimpse of a celebrity, and I no longer need to rely on the “expertise” of those selecting the winners.   Social media gives me access to celebrities and experts on my terms, allowing me to call the shots.   Rather than a network programming my awards season for me,  I can do it myself through blogs, twitter feeds, podcasts and videos.    Social media is, to a large extent, the great equalizer.

I watched the Golden Globes specifically because Ricky Gervais was hosting, and I was disappointed.   Mel Gibson joke aside, it was a multimedia dose of ambien.  Lesson learned.  I’m much better off going to Ricky’s blog, where I learn he just did a photo shoot, his mate’s missing dog was found and  his day consisted of “More junkets.  Went for a run.  Drank wine.  Watched telly.”

I can follow celebs on twitter, including my fave awards show host and current crush Neil Patrick Harris (@actuallynph on twitter and yes I know he’s gay but I’m still crushing).  I can even interact directly with celebs, responding to their twitter messages or commenting on their blogs.   Sometimes, a-hem,  Jon Favreau might even retwitter you.

jon favreau twitter 2-2-2010 9-53-47 AM

But mostly, it’s about the ever-growing voice of public opinion.   It’s about what movie or music my Facebook friends favor, rather than the Foreign Press Association.   It’s about what’s trending on my Twitter feed, with my carefully-curated list of people I follow.  It’s about technology giving us an all-access pass, letting us in behind the velvet rope.  I imagine many actors watched the Academy Award nominations much as I did this morning, viewing the live stream on my laptop.  They will follow the media flow in the same way as well, googling and twittering and clicking on multiple devices.

We’re no longer handcuffed to the entertainment experts presented to us through traditional media venues.  Celebrities can listen not just to the professional critic,  but also to the amateur and fan.   I listen to the opinions that matter to me;  I can find, choose and follow those voices.  Through social media we are achieving what art is all about — freedom of expression — and in doing so we are de-valuing the monopolistic voices that drove public opinion for so long.

I’ll still watch the 82nd Academy Awards on March 7th, to see how Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin fare as  co-hosts and to see the dresses and drama.   It will no longer be a Big Event for me, though.  I’ll likely be multi-tasking with the TV on and TweetDeck open.   Like the Golden Globes and the Grammys, the Oscars have lost their luster.   To shine again they need a significant overhaul that takes into account how we consume media today.  That means more than a go-to-the-website -to-vote-for-a-Bon-Jovi-song gimmick.   Seriously, that’s the best you can do?  For an industry that is grounded in story-telling,  imagination, creativity and magic, remaking the awards show should be a worthy opportunity and challenge.

My six-year-old put it all in perspective when I told her about the Oscars.  She said, simply,  “Oh, they just want you to go to the movies so they can make more money.”

Members of the Academy, the future generation of awards-show-watchers are waiting in the wings.   Go ahead.  Make their day.

Posted in Entertainment, technology | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments »

Washington Post crisis of credibility continues (but don't Twitter that)

Posted by andreaitis on October 5, 2009

“If you don’t get it, you don’t get it.”

That used to be the Washington Post’s ad campaign.

Ironic, huh?

Washington Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander wrote a piece yesterday in response to the Post’s anti-social media guidelines for reporters.  The title, Do Ethics Guidelines Threaten Freewheeling Social Media?, suggests these rules are about ethics.  They’re not.

It would have been fine if Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli said only this:

“What you do on social networks should be presumed to be publicly available to anyone, even if you have created a private account,” the guidelines warn. “If you don’t want something to be found online, don’t put it there.”

But he didn’t.  That good, basic common sense was just part of the guidelines that Brauchli summarized in a staff memo:

“Reporters and editors should not express views that can be construed as political, nor should they take sides in public debates.

There are prohibitions against “writing, tweeting or posting anything — including photographs or video — that could be perceived as reflecting political, racial, sexist, religious or other bias or favoritism that could be used to tarnish our journalistic credibility.” The guidelines “apply to all Post journalists, without limitation to the subject matter of their assignments.”

I presume Brauchli is okay with this memo making the rounds.  If not, he wouldn’t have written them in an email, right?  Here, though, is the final kicker in Alexander’s column:

To Brauchli, the policies speak to neutrality, which he told me is “essential to maintaining our credibility.”

Neutrality is not the only thing essential to maintaining credibility. Transparency is also essential.  Authenticity, an open dialogue and an open mind to how news happens in today’s world.  And these policies contain more neuter than neutrality.  Newsweek’s Dan Lyons is currently engaging in a conversation right here on True/Slant as journalism students dissect one of his columns.  If Dan worked at the Washington Post, he’d be violating their “prohibitions.”

You’d think the Washington Post would have learned something from the off-the-record exclusive access for cashola lobbyist scandal.

I guess it’s true.  If you don’t get it, you don’t get it.

Posted in technology | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Traditional media makes an untraditional move

Posted by andreaitis on May 26, 2009

First, the June 1 cover of The New Yorker is created using a $4.99 iPhone app.

Now, the New York Times has hired a social media editor.

Right about here someone should yell “Stop the presses!”.

As readwriteweb.com notes:

It has come to this; the flagship institution of traditional journalism now has an editor level position dedicated to new media.

Little is known about Preston’s personal use of social media, she’s either using aliases or is remarkably quiet around the web, and details are still forthcoming about the new position she’ll fill. The Times has done a remarkable job of engaging with social media so far, though, and we have high hopes for this new post.

Preston has worked at the New York Times for more than a decade, and spent the last two years running the regional weekly sections and content for nytimes.com/intheregion.  She’s also an adjunct professor at Columbia University and a book author.   When RWW did some due diligence on her social media prowess, this is what they found:

She has a private Twitter account that she’s just begun to open up this morning – but apparently she hasn’t published any tweets there yet, ever. She is following almost 160 people so far, though, far more than are following her to date. So she could be using it for listening.

She’s also got a private FriendFeed account, a private Yahoo account and an unused Tumblr account. The BackType comment search engine can’t find any comments she’s left on blogs around the web.

After this announcement, her Twitter followers shot up to over 2000, and she was actively engaging with twitterers in her debut as Social Media Editor.

Two  steps forward in this expect-the-unexpected week.  Are they gimmicks, shallow nods…or a real effort to move beyond the page?  Does it really matter?  It’ll get people talking and thinking and perhaps push others to do something unexpected and untraditional.   Traditional media needs to try and test and tamper, to experiment and maybe even blow up now and then.    You gotta light the match before you start the fire.  And lord knows, there’s plenty of paper to burn.

Posted in media, technology | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

WSJ Rules of Engagement

Posted by andreaitis on May 14, 2009

Image representing Twitter as depicted in Crun...

Image via CrunchBase

Staffers at The Wall Street Journal were the lucky recipients this week of rules for “professional conduct.”   These rules included a long and specific list related to social media and social networking.

Dow Jones spokesman Robert Christie declined to comment to E&P today on why the updated rules were put out at this time, saying they speak for themselves. But it is clear they are in place for those involved in social networking on the likes of Facebook or Twitter, requiring editor approval before “friending” any confidential sources.

“Openly ‘friending’ sources is akin to publicly publishing your Rolodex,” the rules state, adding, “don’t disparage the work of colleagues or competitors or aggressively promote your coverage,” and “don’t engage in any impolite dialogue with those who may challenge your work — no matter how rude or provocative they may seem.”

New ‘WSJ’ Conduct Rules Target Twitter, Facebook

I get why you shouldn’t ‘friend’ a source.  That’s pure common sense, the same way a cop wouldn’t ‘friend’ an informant’ or a lawyer wouldn’t ‘friend’ a key witness.  But don’t aggressively promote your work?  Sure, you don’t want to spam people but promoting your work on social media sites is one way to, y’know, get people to read it.  To draw attention, create a debate, engage the audience.

I think this one is my favorite though:

“Business and pleasure should not be mixed on services like Twitter. Common sense should prevail, but if you are in doubt about the appropriateness of a Tweet or posting, discuss it with your editor before sending.”

Don’t mix business and pleasure on Twitter.

Discuss a Twitter message with an editor before tweeting it.

Um, really?   Does the person who wrote these rules have anything other than a cursory knowledge of Twitter, Facebook and other social media?   Did anyone raise a hand and say, “The point’s over here and you’re missing it”?

For an industry that is supposed to support free speech, inquiry, discourse,  and — at its core — curiosity, I just don’t get how they don’t get it.

I do agree with one point, however.  Common sense should prevail.  Unfortunately, there’s not much common sense in these rules of engagement.

You can see the entire list of rules for online behavior, along with the other rules of conduct included in the e-mail.   What’s your favorite?  And what rules did they miss?

Posted in technology, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

today is the day i met fred wilson

Posted by andreaitis on October 23, 2008

really.  i did.   and it happened through happenstance.

we attended the New Business Models for News Summit today at the CUNY Graduate School of Journalism.  the program, in its second year, is organized by jeff jarvis and had an all-star turnout.   andrew heyward, craig newmark, jay rosen,  larry kramer … so many others and … fred wilson.  but, it wasn’t just that fred wilson was attending the summit.  oh, no … fred wilson was also the leader of my break-out session.  yep.

all through the strange happenings of happenstance.

so, here it is.  i get to meet fred wilson.  and, it’s weird.  because, as it turns out, the moral of today’s story is this:  social media = social awkwardness.

let me explain.   i keep up with the must-read industry blogs.  including fred’s blog, avc.com.   i follow the usual culprits on twitter.  including fred wilson.    between blog posts and twitter, you get to know someone. the music they like.  the sports teams they follow.  their perspectives and opinions.  the things that make them happy and the things that drive them up the wall.

these social media mechanisms create an intimacy with people you have never met.  i know stowe boyd wakes up every day and twitters ‘good morning edgelings.’   i know jeff jarvis was working on his book while on the acela train.   and i know fred wilson has currently been on an okkervil river kick.

so i know stuff about fred wilson.   and as i was about to meet him, i felt like maybe i’d rather not.   that meeting him after i already ‘know’ him was some strange social shift, going in reverse from personal to impersonal.

and let me be clear: i am not the socially awkward type.  i am typically the one who puts people at ease.  after all, i spent years convincing people to spill their guts on national television.

but the flow of social media meanderings – publicly available, open to all – creates this sense of intimacy.  our tech version of the celebrity syndrome, i suppose.   in our world, though, we have no paparazzi.  we control the flow of information.  it is, in many ways, a social experiment: what goes out, what comes back, what evolves…

and my little experiment still leads me here:  social media = social awkwardness.

the panel led by fred wilson was great – an active, open, lively discussion.  the meeting of fred wilson was okay.  slight to moderate awkwardness.   on my part, at least.   i really don’t know him well enough to gauge what he thought.   we’ll see if he swings by to check out our prototype.  i hope so.  i’d kind of like a do-over.

socially yours –
andrea

Posted in me, tech | Tagged: , , , , , , | 4 Comments »