- Image by elycefeliz via Flickr
As I talk with many of you about the new mindset and business model for local information, you often say something like “There is just too much. How do I use my limited time on information that is truly meaningful to me?”
Blogs, tweets, links, flashes, facebook, myspace, linkedin – it all becomes a blur, a cacophony, sometimes disorientating, or even nauseating.
A reaction of many is to avoid the cacophony, and retreat to the one-way, broadcast it to me, world of traditional newspapers, websites, and television stations.
However, many people are trying to drive through the cacophony, and figure out a way to create a new model, whereby any individual can develop a relationship with a network of information, to get what they want, when they want it, and be shown what might interest them, with a high likelihood of success.
As Clay Shirky said:
By the time that the publishing industries spun up in Venice in the early- to mid-1500s, the ability to have access to more reading material than you could finish in a lifetime is now starting to become a general problem of the educated classes. And by the 1800s, it’s a general problem of the middle class. So there is no such thing as information overload, there’s only filter failure, right? Which is to say the normal case of modern life is information overload for all educated members of society.
If you took the contents of an average Barnes and Noble, and you dumped it into the streets and said to someone, “You know what’s in there? There’s some works of Auden in there, there’s some Plato in there. Wade on in and you’ll find what you like.” And if you wade on in, you know what you’d get? You’d get Chicken Soup for the Soul. Or, you’d get Love’s Tender Fear. You’d get all this junk. The reason we think that there’s not an information overload problem in a Barnes and Noble or a library is that we’re actually used to the cataloging system. On the Web, we’re just not used to the filters yet, and so it seems like “Oh, there’s so much more information.” But, in fact, from the 1500s on, that’s been the normal case.
So, the real question is, how do we design filters that let us find our way through this particular abundance of information? And, you know, my answer to that question has been: the only group that can catalog everything is everybody. One of the reasons you see this enormous move towards social filters, as with Digg, as with del.icio.us, as with Google Reader, in a way, is simply that the scale of the problem has exceeded what professional catalogers can do. But, you know, you never hear twenty-year-olds talking about information overload because they understand the filters they’re given. You only hear, you know, forty- and fifty-year-olds taking about it, sixty-year-olds talking about because we grew up in the world of card catalogs and TV Guide. And now, all the filters we’re used to are broken and we’d like to blame it on the environment instead of admitting that we’re just, you know, we just don’t understand what’s going on. (Emphasis in bold, underline and italics added by Chuck Peters on 12/21/08)
The ideas on this are not new. As mentioned earlier, Bruno Giusanni noted many of the ideas over 11 years ago. Tom Ratkovich outlined the role of the trusted “infomediary” over 6 years ago:
There are three essential qualities of the infomediary:
- Trust. As stated by Hagel and Singer, “Trust
is the infomediary’s lifeblood.” Without trust, consumers
will not share their personal information. Any doubt concerning
the integrity and credibility of the infomediary will entirely
undermine its ability to serve it that capacity.- Existing relationships with consumers and
merchants. While today’s newspaper is the logical entity to
evolve into tomorrow’s infomediary, it is not the given entity.
The Internet opens the door to numerous other institutions to
usurp that role. The window of opportunity is not a large one,
and those posturing to serve as the dominant infomediary will
be disadvantaged if they must build these relationships from scratch.- Channel integration. The ability to integrate
the distribution of marketing communications across multiple channels
is vital for two reasons. First, it allows for communication utilizing
the preferred medium of the consumer. Second, it contributes to
the optimization of merchant ROI by minimizing redundancy. (This
is the primary impediment to companies like Amazon.com and Yahoo!
in assuming the infomediary role.)
In order to engage and strengthen our communities, we need to engage and inform each individual. We, as the local media company, cannot know what each individual is truly interested in. The individual does not want to tell the whole world exactly what their interests are, for fear of loss of privacy, or being abused.
Yet, we are moving to a Relationship Economy, in which how we act will depend not only on the information we receive, but how those in trusted relationships with us inform and guide us.
The formula I have been testing lately is Relationship = Attention x Trust. I am sure that others, at other points in time, have come up with this, but I could not find a direct citation.
In order to have a long relationship with a local information organization, I want to know that I will find everything happening in the community relating to those people, places, events or topics in which I have expressed an interest, without wading through lots of articles and content in which I am not interested. I also want to be aware of other information which a trusted “conductor” thinks someone in my community should know, or someone with my particular interests should know.
Despite the running commentary on whether print newspapers or broadcast news can survive, I think Tom Ratkovich had it exactly right in his expression of complementarity in channel integration. I want those broadcast sources to act like they know that I have the option to be plugged into a relevant network of information. So, in those broadcasted, print media, provide overview, context and promotion of the network.
Those interested in the Semantic Web, including e-Me Ventures, recognize that machines reading code, tags and text can only do so much to serve relevant information. Each individual needs to declare interests, pretty specifically. They are not likely to do so without trust.
People working on the trust side of the equation include the Information Valet Project and Attention Trust. What I think we need for C3 is a plug-in, widget, or service that will allow individuals to clearly express their interests, in exchange for our promise to only use that information to serve information of value to that individual, in a long term relationship.
That information of value can be information created without an agenda ( what we ideally think “news” currently is) and information with an agenda (advertising and commercial content).
That relationship has to be built over time, with lots of conversation. If something is no longer of interest, we need to know, and react quickly.
Without replaying the rest of this blog, we cannot actually serve as the trusted infomediary without the right mindset, tasks, organization, technology and persistence. If we break trust, by failing to provide accurate, timely and relevant information, the game is over
With the daily bemoaning of the fate of local media, and the general economy, the time to act is now, with urgency, as this is our time of greatest opportunity to actually implement these old ideas.
What do you think?
Related articles by Zemanta
- Semantic Search Laid Bare
- What’s Next After Web 2.0? Here’s What You Told Us…
- Best New Mashups: TweetCongress, SemantalyzR
- [Insite] Semantic search – an Interview with Brooke Aker
- New Media Trends And Predictions 2009: What Independent Web Publishers Should Expect – Part 1
- 2009 Web Predictions
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
C3 - Complete Community Connection 
I think another aspect, where business success is concerned, is convenience. This especially relates to the cacophony that Chuck mentions. We want something to quickly give us the trusted information. Trust and attention are important, but many customers have a short attention span (or many things clamoring for their attention). Maybe a second equation is Business Success = Relationship + Convenience.
The difficulty — and the opportunity, if we can figure it out — is that transactional needs, which is where the revenue opportunities are, are ephemeral, and not subject to long-term storage. I need to buy a car today, but not for another six years after I buy one, for example. I need a plumber now, but once the problem is fixed I don’t need one again. So the big challenge is, how to anticipate transactional needs, whatever they may be, in a nimble and flexible way? Wish there were a crunchberry project for that!
Or is the answer just to be sure that the community knows C3 can connect someone to a solution, whatever the need, so that searchers go to C3 first whenever they need something? That seems kind of mass-market, but it’s pretty much where we are right now.
I like Steve’s corollary formula – but would modify it slightly
Business Success = Relationship x Convenience
Because the usefulness accelerates, and is not just additive, so combining the two,
Business Success = Attention x Trust x Convenience
A small point about the ephemeral nature of transaction needs. I need a plumber when the problem arises. The next time a problem arises, I no longer need a plumber because I now have one. So, along with the need to anticipate transactional needs, we need a way to help those in the relationship capture and keep the solutions once found.
Sorry. That last sentence should read:
…capture, keep and share solutions…
“What I think we need for C3 is a plug-in, widget, or service that will allow individuals to clearly express their interests, in exchange for our promise to only use that information to serve information of value to that individual, in a long term relationship.”
I think this is what the Semantic/Web 3.0 is bringing. It will allow people to “opt” in, much like the Google/News Readers via RSS of today, with little to no manual filtering.
Not sure how many people use Google Reader – but there are “Suggestions” of additional feeds for you. Just think if there was one column of information you already like and then another of things we think you’d like.
Good post Chuck.
The trust is an invaluable asset I hope Gaz can leverage quickly. For all the polls saying the public distrusts journalist, I believe the trust in newspapers as a reliable source of information is still there, even among the young. Th information game is changing drastically (no news to many), but the trust already established can help us build a new audience.
Kathy Alter
Good post, Chuck.
“What I think we need for C3 is a plug-in, widget, or service that will allow individuals to clearly express their interests, in exchange for our promise to only use that information to serve information of value to that individual, in a long term relationship.”
I wonder if we should work toward a singular plug-in, widget or service, or if offering a few different options may be more appealing or accurate.
I think a challenging is being able to differentiate between values – long term permanent interests, hobbies, etc. – versus a passing interest or a short-term transactional needs, like finding a good plumber when the toilet breaks. We want to be sure we can serve both.
When it comes to the information with an agenda, I question whether it’s enough simply to try and link up a person looking for a plumber with a list of plumbers… or whether we can use the information shared in the course of our relationship to identify better matches for their specific need. I think we need to strive for the latter because I think it will really help with trust, though I think getting valid targeted results is a good checkpoint.
One of the things that I think has limited the accuracy of some of the results of places like Netflix, which wants to recommend movies I may enjoy based on how I’ve rated movies I’ve seen, is they haven’t accounted for having multiple users. I think accounting for this in the widget/plug-in, etc., will be important for us to deliver information with value.
I don’t think this ability is far off and I agree with Tom’s semantic Web, reader comment. I was surprised a couple weeks ago while configuring my Google reader. I got several “suggestions” for additional feeds based on things I had searched on Google outside of the reader. Those suggestions were more accurate than other places I have a “relationship,” such as Netflix. I haven’t studied the reason why, but my guess would be that Google based suggestions on individual repeated searches when I’m logged into igoogle, what comes into my Gmail, etc., because it knew it was me. To the contrary, Netflix lacks a way of differentiating the movies that are of interest to me versus those appealing to my wife. The system tries to find similarities between movies on the list for both of us. As a result we each get less meaningful results which don’t have as much value.
A question that I’m left wondering, to what extent do we utilize declarations users make to other sites they trust to help deliver relevant content from our sites to them? It seems we need to find ways that we can take the declarations they make other places (i.e. facebook, LinkedIn), and use that information to deliver relevant content. Would users trust us to ingest their identities from these sites to create a series of widgets that deliver value? If we take that approach, we may end up with a few different widgets or plug-ins that take the same information and allow us to tweak the content differently, or allow users to turn off certain portions of the content.
For less than $50, local newspapers could purchase one wireless mesh network unit, configure their community wireless mesh network (local broadband infrastructure) and sell subscriptions to the community. The local broadband infrastructure then can be leveraged to provide the entire community with reasonable wholesale Internet access pricing. There is no technical expertise needed beyond a handful of volunteers to monitor the operation and maintenance of the newspaper’s “branded network”. My local newspaper wouldn’t even respond. Will yours? Stupid is as stupid does.
Chuck, I’m so glad you left a comment on SuzeMuse’s post so I could find your thoughtful blog. I’m going to subscribe and recommend it to reporter friends in my community.
I’m one of those still subscribing to an ever-shrinking local daily because I believe we need it. They’re laying off reporters every few weeks and the LOCAL news–the one element I can’t get at the same quality level from all the national and web-based outlets–is the part that’s shrinking fastest because you can’t just pull those stories off the wire; there are actual salaries and benefits involved in getting them.
Local bloggers don’t fill this niche. They’re not trained journalists, their writing is mostly opinion with little to no fact checking, and they don’t have an editor assigning stories on the basis of significance to a wide range of readers. While they give me interesting information and personal perspective, it’s not news.
I have only questions, no answers, but will continue to read here for some ideas for the future.
Tompoe: Our community was an early adopter of a hot zone with two hours free access available to anyone in the downtown core. It’s used by public safety for real-time information, which is how the city justified its involvement and dealt with the competition issue with the local cable provider (from which the city receives franchise fees as aprt of its revenue stream). The original equipment was donated by a company that no longer exists. The hot zone now struggles because it has real maintenance and update costs–equipment doesn’t work forever, technology changes, and in this case the manufacturer is gone. The idea that volunteers should do this when it has real economic value will also break down after the first wave of enthusiasm.
Your idea, while interesting, has far more technical and regulatory issues than you lay out here. It’s an interesting extension of a notion that newspapers aren’t in the news business, they’re in the business of providing access to information. I want them to continue in the NEWS business and if this type of venture further threatens an already shaky profit & loss profile, I’d vote no.
@BarbChamberlain
@BarbChamberlain
As to your point, a common one, that:
Local bloggers don’t fill this niche. They’re not trained journalists, their writing is mostly opinion with little to no fact checking, and they don’t have an editor assigning stories on the basis of significance to a wide range of readers. While they give me interesting information and personal perspective, it’s not news.
That is the current state of affairs. I don’t think that will change overnight, but if a local media company encouraged blogs on items of strong local interest, that might change. At least we should not be structured in such a way as to discourage that!
Thanks for the comment.
Chuck
Nice post and discussion.
The value creating activity of an editor is to be able to choose those stories that will be “interesting” to their readers. Filtering out the noise to find the signal and doing it again and again is what creates trust.
Until the tech gets to a robust AI level, it’s a great tool to make the sausage, but it’s a loser for the mass market. When it’s easy, then editors will be replaced by aggregators. Until then, it’s a very hard problem. Solving very hard problems is how you earn a living.
One element that is often overlooked in the “news” discussion is the power of the customized print object as part of the mix. The tech is ready. The content is their. Just needs some editors how know what to choose for which audiences in close to real time.
With the newspapers collapsing, I have to figure there is lots of great talent out there.
As a lay-person (outside the world of media) I am intrigued by these ideas and see parallels and applications in my field of business as well. I agree that with the economic conditions of the day, we have a great opportunity (calling?) to examine how we conduct our lives and realize that in a time a crisis becoming mutually resourceful by building relational trust is critical to any system’s survival, whether that system be a family, church, school, business, media provider, etc. In times of financial hardship it is the opportunity to realize that the abundance that we seek is not in material wealth, but it is within a community of knowledge. The knowledge becomes the means to provide the community.
Clearly the technology provides the vehicle and the content; the quest is one of leadership and vision . And I couldn’t agree with you more that you will capture your audience and build relational trust through attention and convenience.
In my world as in yours, the perception of “overload” causes people to retreat to the known and safe. This, sadly, will not propel us forward to enrich our common lives. And in any profession that realizes the power of language, we are obligated to make the cacophony navigable.
Thoughts from the outside.
Pingback: OMNT Links of the Week #8 | Old Media, New Tricks
Pingback: At the forefront of change « Jason Kristufek’s We Media blog
Although I do think it’s important to have media filters, I also believe it is a responsibility we must take on ourselves to limit our media exposure to that which is both true and worthwhile. This is also a practice this computer generation needs to teach its children. Although many people do not take the time to sort through what they let into their minds or what they allow their children to see, Ibelieve this is the most important filter. Otherwise, we are letting the media dictate what we think about, and often consequently, what we think.
I agree that a new model of information processing and delivery will be the best way to categorize the large array of media outlets. I think for the first time people have to make the decision to filter the information from the large media outlets and even smaller outlets. Blogs are blogs, simply an opinion on something, expertise involved or not. It is an opinion. If you are interested in others opinions you read their blog but I think this is a filter itself. As consumers we filter the information we are most interested and that might very well not be traditional media outlets in the near future. Conducting new business models and integrating technology will have it’s difficulties but I also believe it may be a huge leap forward in categorizing and organizing news and information.
Conglomerates were formed with traditional media because few held the resources that were needed to deliver content. The Internet expands who is content creators/deliverers to the point anyone with broadband internet is a creator/deliverer. However, I worry that so much focus on already-established, trusted relationships will leave little room for new ones. In fact, the whole idea of “trust” narrows the development of relationships into fewer numbers.
Why would anyone start to explore information outside of their given “trusted relationships”? I feel this would be a return to conglomerates–conglomerates of trust. Maybe this is exactly what the purpose is. Yet, I feel new content providers would be neglected until they developed enough momentum to be initiated into this trust system, and by then, the timeliness of content to which they produced would be irrelevant.
I realize that I only present shortcomings to this idea of fostering a trust system, but I feel that the main problem with new media is the lack of responsibility people have in using it. Thus, this is my share of responsibility.
As consumers continue to use new media and veer farther away from traditional media conglomerates, building a system to form trusted relationships is pivotal. The truth is that consumers trust other consumers, they do not necessarily believe or trust the company selling a product. That is why new media is so important, especially blogs. These are the ways consumers interact with other consumers. Although it is an opinion, it’s the opinion trusted by other consumers.
I like and agree with the modified model of business success = Attention x Trust x Convenience. It is very important for media outlets to establish trust within their community. After this trust has been established I believe that the specific media outlet now has the attention of the consumer. I think that the convenience aspect can correlate with media outlets offering blog posts on their sites. Like megs527 said, it is important for consumers to communicate with each other because they trust each other. If the consumer is trying to figure out whether they want to buy a product it is convenient for them to look up what other consumers have been saying about the product in order to make a sound decision.
I agree with dudehey- the real problem with new media is the lack of responsibility people have in using it. To me the idea of a media filter is similar to censoring. People should be able to read an article and realize that it may reflect a certain opinion. Some people choose to use these articles as facts, not commentary, and that is their own decision. If someone is not able to distinguish between fact and fiction, than they should deal with their own ignorance themselves.
It is unfortunate that new media has brought this issue forward, but maybe it is for the better. I can’t remember a time when more media bias and false reporting has been detected. Blogs have given people across the world to address the media’s abuse of their power. This is why new media is so important. Blogs and social networking sites allow people to meet and voice their opinions like never before. Instead of filtering these voices, people should take responsibility for their roles as both a reader and a journalist in what they write.
I agree with Steve that convenience should play a part in the equation. As consumers of media information using many outlets, it is essential that we come up with an equation that gives the consumer all of the necessary qualities all in one. Convenience, attention, and trust must all find a way to meet in the middle, giving the consumer a reason to stick with a particular media outlet and keep the relationship growing.
Having been a part of the newspaper world for three and a half years, I have heard this over and over again. I have done interviews and info sessions with head recruiters at McClatchy, Gannett, and several other newspaper publishers, and every time I hear them say, “Newspapers aren’t dying, they are changing.” It’s a challenge for the companies and those of us graduating and entering the industry to find ways to reach out to everyone with information. Like this blog says, information consumers need trust. They need a relationship before they become loyal readers. They need a resource that gives them the information they need and want, when they need and want it…and by the means they need and want it. Whether this be online, cell phone, traditional newspaper, etc. Working for The Kansan, we have expanded our Web site to reach those students who prefer their news this way, and we have also expanded to mobile versions of our news. In addition, we are reaching out to student to grow this relationship and trust by being more active in the community. We have also created new Web sites, as extensions of our brand, to meet other needs of our readers. These include a free classified Web site and a Web site, The Guide, that is extremely similar to the one we were shown in class. This Web site gives students information, maps, numbers, user reviews, ratings, etc on the bars and restaurants around Lawrence, as well as events that are happening. It’s strategies like these that newspapers need to take to stay alive, to continue to keep and gain loyal readers, and to continuing giving their advertisers, who keep the paper printing, ROI. These “relationships” with readers are vital.
I think that the idea of a news filter poses both positive and negative ideas. On the positive side, people will build trust in the news they are reading. This is important because there is so much false news that it is hard to determine which news is right. On the other hand, a news filter would take away freedom of speech. I feel that people should be allowed to say whatever they like, but people should also take what they read with a grain of salt.
Newspapers provide a trustworthy news source, but who is to say that the news that is being reported is not skewed or opinionated. Many times two trustworthy news stations and newspapers will have different information about the same event. How are those news sources being filtered? Frankly, just because a journalist reports on a subject, doesn’t necessary mean that he/she is any more right the average person blogging or twittering the event. I think that filtering news would give people less option to learn about news from all different angles, and to evaluate whose news to trust.
People Magazine is a respected and trustworthy magazine, but what actually the magazine any different from every other gossip magazine? t angles.
I agree with the article, and think that consumers will be using new media outlets which will be based on trust and building relationships. I do think that filtering does need to take place but ultimately it needs to be the responsibility of the consumer. I agree with songbomb21, we shouldn’t let the media dictate what we think, and that we are the most important filter.
I totally agree with jthought87 and songbomb 21 in that “we are the most important filter.” I would rather my own news (by providing my personal interests and information) than an editor or conglomerate deeming what is important to me. In this low-trust world, I rely on myself to know what is fact and opinion and what is important, rather than traditional or new media professionals.
Categorizing and organizing news and information is another growing pain of technology. I believe that in this case, a better word to use is “overwhelming” rather than “overload.” An abundance of information is a good thing- we just need to figure out how to simplify it. We also need to make people more comfortable with providing their information to get the results that they want (trust).
A news filter sounds like a good idea because it is a good way to build trust. Consumers will seek out news sources that they can trust, and over time, they will build a relationship with the providers of the news. However, I agree with sugaro86 in that it is hard to filter news because it can be difficult to know which news is right. I think it would be hard for me to be a filter because it would be hard for me to determine which news is right as well.
I agree that there is no such thing as “information overload, only filter failure”. People can choose what outlets they get their information from and if they feel like what they are reading is biased or lacking the facts they should find a new source. It is up to the individual to filter their own information and collect information from a few different outlets. Using different outlets not only helps in making informed decisions on what you believe but it also helps distinguish fact from fiction. Mechanical filters scare me because stuff might slip through the cracks or information based on fact might get filtered.
Even as people complain about the new media having a lack of accountability and reliability, we are discovering more and more that reports in the old media have been biased, inaccurate, and trust in old media is declining. To me it doesn’t seem like new media have much of a different problem from old media, people don’t know what to trust, what’s accurate and what’s objective.
I think it should be up to the individual to decide what they trust to be accurate sources of news. As a source of information proves to be reporting accurate information, a relationship of trust can be built. Time will prove to everyone which news-sources are reliable and which are not.
I definitely agree with the idea of “filter failure”, with our extremely interconnected world we as consumers need to be able to intelligently assess what to believe and what not to believe. There is a wealth of knowledge available at the click of a button and as interactive communicators we need to be able to use different sources in order to access the information that we are looking for as well as be skeptical of the information we find.
I agree with the term information overload as well, but like Buster I believe it is important for the individual itself to find relevant material that interests him/her. I think a computerized filter would censor material for bias reasons and I do not believe these filters necessarily know what news or information is correct. It is up to the individual to decide which news and information he or she wants to read
Mike John 1013
Consumers are the only filter out there nowadays. We are a strong media outlet and will only strengthen. The equation “Relation=Attention x Trust” sums up good media. Consumers demand quick attentiveness as well as trust. Consumers have plenty of channels to choose from re news and they will choose only the best. With experience, consumers themselves will ultimately decide the valuable outlets.
I think that people in this day and age are going to get information from whatever source they feel is credible and convenient. I agree that trust plays a huge role in this relationship, but it is not solely based on trust. Consumers believe what other users have to say about a particular event, service or product. It is necessary to have filters on many of these sites or blogs, but for the most part, we want to know the bare-naked truth about something. It just seems more credible coming from other people that I can relate to. Another aspect of filtering seems a little far-fetched because it is nearly impossible to filter it all.
I think that the ideals of success for a news source will become less and less. With so many blogs, tweets, etc. out there people will have to choose which one(s) they trust and which one(s) they will attach themselves to. Since there are so many alternatives available out there, a source will have to strictly adhere to the Relationship=Attention x Trust. The second that any part of the relationship equation is broken, the tie between the viewer and source will be broken as well.
I think that as more and more forms and method of communication become popular or are created, media does need to build a relationship with consumers. Like megs527 said, consumers will most likely only trust other consumers. It it up to the media to again the attention of a consumer and try to build a level of trust with them, thus creating a relationship. Blogs and other modes of communication have been an outlet for people to discuss issues things they like and don’t like. Like Professor Perlmutter said in class- when he was young he had no way to get in contact with a newspaper or television station to verify if what they say is true. Now, the connection is almost instantaneous, and I think that helps build trust with the consumer.
The idea of building trust is a daunting task because American’s trust in information is quickly diminishing. The concept is a very interesting because having a network that provides information for the individual can also provide social cohesion at the same time. People interested in the same local political issues can potentially use these channels to unite. OSIM news sites might be a powerful way to spread information quickly to a large informed audience. However, I agree that the quality and credibility of the information must be good to gain support.
I think the new model of processing will be effective but it is also up to the consumer to filter information. Consumers choose outlets based on interests but also on TRUST. Trust has been an issue at the forefront because younger generations have less trust in the media. The outlets that will be successful are those that will build relationships with consumers. While the idea of filters seems beneficial I think consumers should be their own system of filtration because at the end of the day it is their responsibility.
Much like walking into a Barnes and Noble store, internet users can choose where they get their sources. If they feel that these sources are being biased, I agree with buster25, find a new source. It is making these choices that people can create their own filter. The wisest choice would be to find information from a variety of sources, therefore ensuring all information is correct instead of relying on one internet site. I hope that this will not change the current filter system (or lack there of). Important sites could get filtered out and people could miss important information. I believe it is up to the individual to filter information themselves.
i think that you hit the nail on the head with: relationships being built on trust and attention. This is something that the media world has to adopt in order to survive. The public knows what it wants, when it wants it, and where to find it. If a news information company could build a relationship on strictly on trust and attention it would benefit both sides greatly. You have cited plenty of work here backing this move up and I think that the people will voice their opinion for this movement. Keep on keepin on.
I think it is important for different forms of media to work together to make it through the ever-changing media world. As consumers trust other consumers more than they trust companies, news information outlets need to be aware of this. They need to create companies in which consumers can be sources. With the ever-changing technology I know this will be possible, it will just take work.
I agree and think that there should be more of a filter on what we search for. It is imporatnt to know what our interests are in order to weed out unuseful information. Other people’s opinion can greatly help with our decisions. I use Websites based off of what friends have suggested. I understand the overwhelming feeling that people may feel when there is not a filtering system. Perhaps something could be implemented in the community.
Efforts to create a reliable, trustworthy environment for people to relinquish their privacy in turn for more specialized attention to their needs has been evolving rather slowly but steadily thanks to social network sites like Facebook, despite the fact that many users are angered by recent changes that tried to access their photos without their knowing. This trust that up until that point had been the best so far with the general public in gaining trust and handling private information on a massive scale and displaying any activity between friends in news bulletins. There’s no absolute trust to be sought after as 100% objectivity in news reporting is still matters with the public’s perception. I do agree that using anyone and everyone in order to create an all-encompassing and easily-accessible infomediary would be great, but we already have a test subject in orbit- Wikipedia. Even though people know that there’s no guarantee of a hundred percent accuracy, there’s still a substantial number of people that depend on it as a reference on a daily basis. As for filtering the news, by putting the public in charge of categorizing and highlighting news information bits for easy consumption there would need to be an agreed upon system of guidelines as to what is and isn’t newsworthy. Otherwise, it’ll be the same news politics as usual.