Natali Del Conte - Latest Comments

Re: Technological Determinism Is False

sunsnapper — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:55:39 -0000

Stewart Brand's famous meme asserting that a tension is created because information simultaneously wants to be free and expensive comes into play in this discussion.

"Information wants to be free (because of the new ease of copying and reshaping and casual distribution), AND information wants to be expensive (it's the prime economic event in an information age)... and technology is constantly making the tension worse. If you cling blindly to the expensive part of the paradox, you miss all the action going on in the free part. The pressure of the paradox forces information to explore incessantly. Smart marketers and inventors quietly follow-and I might add, so do smart computer security people." (Stewart Brand)

Information has become cheaper. Broadcasting that information has become cheaper. Building a platform that adds value to information is at the core of Web 2.0 and social networking sites, by letting users rank, vote, forward, or comment on the information. The question becomes, to what end?

Joe is shouting in a tunnel... and his shout may not be heard today any more than it was heard before the Internet. However, if Joe is providing information that people are curious about, and if that information is hard to find elsewhere, the shouts will be heard. Or, if a social networker is able to cross Joe's tunnel with Sue's tunnel and Bob's tunnel, then their voices might be heard more readily... if what they are saying is unique or interesting.

Society shapes itself with whatever tools are at hand. In the case of the network as a tool, the network doesn't care whether the information it distributes make the world better or not. The people making use of the information have to decide that.

For example, the same network allows Obama Campaigners or Conservative Tea Party Planners to use facebook and twitter to organize events. If facebook did not exist, however, these events would probably still happen... the organizers would have to use a different tool to get the word out.

Society may not use the tool to shape itself for the better... the network doesn't know or care that its pipes are filled with a gazillion megabytes of porn or serves as a recruiting tool for a hate group or a terrorist organization.

When information production and distribution were more expensive, publishers and broadcasters would seek authoritative sources to protect the value of their investment. As this becomes cheaper, and viewers are flooded with information, now the viewer (not broadcaster) seeks a way to find authoritative sources, to help reduce the information clutter and protect their investment in time. This puts Joe right back in his tunnel, not getting heard until he is deemed an authoritative contributor. At the same time, the broadcaster increasingly moves away from authoritative to novelty, in the interest of picking up the pieces of their fragmented audience.

Re: Technological Determinism Is False

abudak — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:22:25 -0000

A fascinating thing to think about, and indeed it's something I am spending a lot of time in graduate school examining. If technological determinism makes you uncomfortable, you may enjoy looking into the "Social Construction of Technology" (SCOT) model. Rather than arguing that technology shapes social action, social constructivists argue that it is in fact humans and their actions shaping technology. Please feel free to check out my site -- http://unpoppedcollar.com -- for more discussions on technological determinism versus social constructivism.

Re: Technological Determinism Is False

facebook-1392076833 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:44:47 -0000

As the novelty of social inter-networking begins to fade the practicality of business inter-networking will take its place. Ebay was the great liberator of the worlds junk, until business got the message and began utilizing ebay as a portal. Now many businesses who made a name for themselves on ebay are working on their own sites in order to build their brand.
It seems that the internet is an incubator for creative business, media, and ideas. Its viral nature combined with low cost has reduced the incubation time for these ventures, and therefore their MTBF. The ideas spew out daily and are replaced with new ones the next, and the paradime shifts. The only constant is change. But were assured that everyone is focused on the internet.
So given all this hoo ha, why not have a discussion about the evolutionary next-steps for the internet? What will ubiquitous bandwidth bring, if anything? Will the masses tire of texting? Is twitter just a phase or will it clog with spam just as email did and become something boring we do at work? What are the similarities between the evolution of email and that of twitter, if any? I want to know if the internet is the technology of the future, or just the obsession of the day. Is there something else out there that will change our lives in a more profound way, and were all missing it because were too busy harvesting someones crops in farm town?
Inquiring minds want to know!
T

Re: Technological Determinism Is False

mrzod — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:30:48 -0000

Hey Ms. Del Conte :)

I'm a huge fan of yours! I'm interested in applying for a job at CBS Interactive (in the Finance dept.), could you help me out by forwarding it internally to someone in HR? My email is: jay.wong8[at]gmail.com

Thanks,

Jay Wong

Re: Technological Determinism Is False

alecperkins — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 17:04:27 -0000

I would argue that there is nothing inherent in the Internet or the Web that would directly change the way we communicate or reshuffle the concentrations of media power. Instead, they offer possibilities for new technologies, new communication, and new voices. But, as you said, it's up to us to decide which technologies we carry forward. The Net/Web have removed the barrier to entry that was the infrastructure for publishing. Now, the hurdle to overcome is visibility.

Any advantages the major media producers had before the Internet still apply; these are namely visibility, resources, connections, and scope. Plus, the already big media producers get the same advantages given by the Net as the little ones. The Net empowers people by removing the barriers of physical production, publication, and distribution. For small bloggers or podcasters, that's everything when it comes to having a voice.

Visibility works both ways, though more effective going from real-world to online than the other way around. Entities that have great real-world visibility will start off with much higher visibility online than the average blogger. Twitter is a great example of this. As soon as it became mainstream, all of the top-followed people were ones who were already real-world celebrities of some kind. However, because bits are endlessly copyable, it's possible that Just Another Average Blog can become a focus for the attention of the entire Web, provided their server can handle it. For this to happen, the content needs to be interesting, compelling, or include cats. Aggregators like Digg help to bring the best content to the surface of the pool that is the Web. This attention isn't forever, though, since news does generally require that the information be new.

Major media outlets are not just a single blogger or journalist anyway, so it's no surprise they can hold attention and maintain the concentration of power and control. A single person going it alone rarely commands the same kind of audience, especially a sustained one, that a whole team of journalists does. The "love affair with new-ness" results in the attention moving on from a topic after the novelty wears off. A large group ("old" networks like CNN, or "new-ish" ones like CNET) has the collection of content that will keep the attention within its domain. Some blogs, like Engadget, become continual centers of attention, but they do so by becoming big. Much of what they report on isn't even new for many, either. It seems as though there is often a tradeoff between novelty and visibility, though I'm not sure how much of a dichotomy this really is.

I think that the communication tools we should watch out for, and encourage, are ones that reward compelling content with visibility. Obviously, compelling to whom is the real question, and in most cases compelling will be determined by the crowd at large. Robert Scoble has been making a fuss about Twitter's lists, saying that they will change the game from having the most followers to being on the most lists. His reasoning is that lists will help to distill the users who have the most interesting content. Tools like that are the ones that will help the average blogger become noticed, they just have to provide compelling content, then push it and get people to notice.

Re: Technological Determinism Is False

matus1976 — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 03:46:46 -0000

I think the same could be said of determinism in general, among schools of history a major movement lies in a form of historical determinism, that all major social changes have come from large anonymous historical factors, such as climate changes, new technologies, or biological changes, and these occur irrespective of individuals. This is essentially a Marxist doctrine - that society goes through phases that individuals have no influence over. But any cursory understanding of general history proves this wrong, many times throughout history individuals have had profound influences on the entire course of human development. The same is very true of technology, a poorly conceived law could derail technological innovations or even stop them cold. For over a decade Brazil banned PC imports and subsequently have the most outdated and smallest computer market penetration even adjusting for their average social-economic status. The original semi-conductor patent was so different from other technology that it didn't even have any references in the 'prior art' section. The fact is all social changes are the result of a complex interaction of profoundly influential individuals and larger anonymous social changes, and none of it is deterministic.

Re: Technological Determinism Is False

John McMillion — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:51:26 -0000

Natali,

You can do better. Better than this. C'mon, what do you really think? What do *you* have to say on the subject? Something I was struck by, through conversation at the BOL meet-up, was your appetite for knowledge. Your pursuit of information. It's one of your better qualities as a person I'd say.

But this particular post seems more preoccupied with sounding articulate, without articulating anything in particular. Uses a whole lot of syllables, without saying a whole lot.

You have a wealth of experience and expertise. You have our attention. Your voice has value. So, let's hear it!

John McMillion
San Diego, CA

Re: Technological Determinism Is False

mrbobbytx — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 00:18:35 -0000

I think of the technology 'explosion' as sort of like a lava stream. The lava flows even though rock forms around it as it cools. The rock is left behind as the hot lava continues forward. The 'rock' is illustrative of the 'determistic' technology which is soon left behind because, well, it is rock hard and the lava must go somewhere.

Determinism in this field sounds like wishful thinking on the part of those who control certain areas (or hope to). New is not always better, but it is always inevitable (I think).

Re: Technological Determinism Is False

twitter-15371802 — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 22:18:16 -0000

I enjoyed this post.

"New media" is the favorite term of many these days, but it simply can't succeed without "old" media's content. Considering the real power in these technologies lies in the people behind them, and how they use these technologies, maybe we need "digital sociologists," who focus entire careers solely on understanding people's behaviors online, regardless of the technological platforms they're using.

I agree that the Internet's love affair with new-ness is pervasive, but cautious, tamed optimism and eagerness for innovation can also help great ideas grow that might otherwise never reach adoption.

Re: Technological Determinism Is False

adobe1 — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:21:46 -0000

I have to disagree with some of the things you said. For example, despite being a person who live on the cutting edge, I do find out about something new or atleast get updated on something that I already knew about every time I see your programs.

Ok, seriously, I do feel equally dissapointed about how technology hasn't changed us enough. I think technological advancement is not a linear and constantly progressive in nature, rather it has many branches of which some continue to grow while some dry out and fall to the ground. If you look at the history of aviation for example, there are so many nifty inventions that never made past a blueprint or prototype while some became part of our everyday life.

Another point to remember when thinking about this sort of thing is that some people tend to assess what's going on in the "world" based on what's going on around them (i.e. the US or the western countries in general) Why is it in the movies aliens always invade New York?

So, what about media freedom, digital divide, decentralized control etc? As long as humans continue to contribute to technology, there will always be a bit of human nature in it. So the real question is not if technology has changed us but have we changed the way we embrace and go about dealing with it. After all, human development didn't start in the 90s. It's wasn't always a positive trend either. (There were times when the Greeks forgot how to read and write) We can never expect things to just magically get better. I think we are in for a huge expectations bubble burst not too far in the near future.

Re: The Value of Voice

AlbertEinstien12345 — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:26:27 -0000

If you only disseminated facts while reporting you would appear boring and lifeless. You do an excellent job of displaying your affection of the story or product. Offering your professional opinion while reporting factual information is still journalism. Giving up any sign of a bias would mean giving up your personality, which would be a tragedy in my opinion.

Keep up the great work

Re: The Value of Voice

Minsoo — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:41:16 -0000

I think before you can tackle the topic of JOURNALISM, you must first agree about the definition of NEWS. Today, learning about what happened, that is, the cold hard facts of what occurred, can be had for free via newswires and the web itself, then cross checked over multiple sources as well as direct feeds such as twitter. This is what people used to call NEWS. It's now a commodity and the expectation is that it can be had for free. What is missing however, are the insights, additional information, back-story and CONTEXT for why any particular piece of NEWS could or will impact people. What is commonly called PERSPECTIVE. If some one could demonstrate a consistent additional value of providing that context and insight in a friendly, non-judgmental way, that would be of great appeal. That would be worth choosing to follow and give the most precious of all things today. ATTENTION.

Re: The Value of Voice

Native Son — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:49:58 -0000

You asked questions and I felt I needed to respond. You once said on "loaded" that people should be restrained from calling other people names to which I responded, not so. Now you say that you, as a journalist, should be able to speak your mind. I feel a conflict within you here.
The only reason I can understand a journalist voicing their own opinion is to sway others into thinking the way they do. As an individual on your own website or telling your mom, dad and sister, now that's something else.
Celebrities and journalists that use their media positions to promote their own agenda discuss me. They only want to control people or sway their opinion.
Leave your religion and your politics at home or on your personal media. You will get more respect in the long term. Looks like others may agree but I don't always follow the consensus.
Oh, I think Sotomayor is prejudice and I hope you are not quoting her for her judicial opinions but maybe because you share a common background.
You should be happy you're not in the Bay Area today. I don't think you would be running in the park, you slacker.

Re: I Loathe Celebrity Gossip

Free Acai Berries — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 00:51:35 -0000

I do think that there's some value to harmless esacapism, though. some people read books, some head to the gym, some think of old lovers with lust and regret. Thanks for the post.

Re: The Value of Voice

dgcpn — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:18:49 -0000

Natalie,
I too am a broadcast journalist.
Our responsibility is to report the facts
and leave opinions up to the viewers/listeners.
Once you start to offer your opinion during a
report you become an entertainer and lose your journalistic
credibility and objectivity. If your goal is to become a news entertainer
in the realm of consumer electronics then keep doing what you are doing.
If you wish to be an objective journalist than drop your personal opinions.
There is nothing wrong with being a "vanilla" journalist...In the long run it
will garner you greater respect from your peers, superiors and the public.

Respectfully,

David

Re: The Value of Voice

facebook-746970434 — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 02:34:32 -0000

Natali

Part of the reason that shows like BOL and TWIT work is because it is a discussion, and therefore opinions are required to further the show. Be kinda boring if no one had anything to say...
Loaded on the other hand is in a format that one would expect to hear the news without bias. This even has a prevision, as long as you present the facts, and then present your opinion labeled as such ( i.e. saying, I think.... or in my opinion.... ). This to me is more than acceptable, it's appreciated. The expectation is that you have either experience with the subject, or have heard from multiple sources before shaping your opinion. In this day and age where there is a dearth of news sources, it seems that a journalist's (note journalist, not reporter...) job is more as a filter. As consumers it's our job to decide which filter we trust and enjoy.

Re: The Value of Voice

todd — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:15:35 -0000

Natali-
For an anthropologist, this is discussion is always relevant. As members (or outsiders to) the communities among whom we work, we can't help but form opinions, allegiances, friendships, etc. However, it is still possible to be objective (or at least approach objectivity) without being neutral. I worked with an indigenous community on the southwest coast of New Guinea and witnessed the devastating impacts of three decades of mining on their land, resources and lifestyle. While I certainly found the damage to their livelihoods (without appropriate compensation and/or assent) repugnant, pointing out the FACTS of their experiences was a good way to be objective, while leaving readers with a strong, irrefutable notion of reality.

Re: The Value of Voice

Alamar9 — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 21:21:11 -0000

I agree with you. For me, Openness is the only clear communication worth listening to or reading. If you are open about where you stand and offer it as such, people can agree or disagree with you...it's their choice. If you offer facts, along with your opinions, then I believe that, is the new 'Balance.'
I found you on Twitter, following Leslie Sanchez...whom I like, even tho she is a 'republicana.'
I look forward to following you. Peace.

Re: The Value of Voice

Mark — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:48:09 -0000

I don't mind bias in journalism, but I think openness is a key to that. If I am not getting full disclosure, I greet journalism with skepticism. While full disclosure by itself does not create an automatic trust of the journalist, without it I don't see how I can trust the journalist, no matter how much their published opinions might coincide with mine.

Re: The Value of Voice

Jason Bone — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:36:35 -0000

Natalie: I like your work on Cnet, BUT. I really think journalists should be A-Political. I watch/listen to some of your podcasts and when I hear political views I turn it off. Just my two cents....

Re: The Value of Voice

pinkprincess777 — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:06:24 -0000

Why in the world would I want to 'interact' or 'engage' with the news? Report the facts. I can form opinions for myself. It bothers me that people in the news media feel they need to impose their personal ideas or opinions upon the rest of us about current events. It is actually kind of insulting and a subtle implication that educated people cannot think for themselves.

If a company is doing something stupid (like Verizon) simply tell us about it. We are smart enough to handle it without anyone holding our hand or telling us how to think.

Re: The Value of Voice

DonnieM — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 08:13:25 -0000

Natalie;

(ack! This came out longer than I thought it would, sorry...I hope that you find it of use)

I've read back through a couple of your blogs, but I haven't read too many of the comments. I don't know if I'm covering ground already covered (and I’m assuming that I understand your goals and questions correctly as well)…so here it is;

1.) As for news bias, that's complicated; Are you the Producer, as well as Reporter? Who controls the content? If it's all YOU, then I'd say "yes", be bias if you wish...but let it be known that you are filtering the content and that this is YOUR show, colored by YOUR P.O.V. and that you are not trying to present "fair & balanced" (laconic wink to FOX) coverage. You are effectively then, an op-ed Reporter/Commentator, and there's nothing wrong with that. I personally don't mind my favorite Commentators having bias, as long as they don't try and pretend that they're puritanical, old-school Reporters...which leads in to my next point;

2.) The news (like most things in life) is all about TRUST. As long as I feel that you're making your case based on substantiated facts…even if you draw a different lesson or opinion from the facts than another Reporter/Commentator who is of a different bias than yours...then I don't mind. At least I know that you showed me ALL of the evidence (important for that trust!), and hence, I was able to draw roughly the same conclusion as you, because we think alike (or maybe I can't formulate my thoughts as well as you can, and that's why I watch you to begin with, because I know that basically we'll agree in spirit, and you'll then be able to express that spirit more eloquently than I).

3.) "Entertainment factor" is a big part of the news today. It's part of why people like O'Reilly and Beck are so successful. I'm not saying that you need to yell at people or have confrontational interviews (that doesn't strike me as your style anyway). But you should think about what your strengths are in the area of entertainment and integrate them in to your show. Basically, you just need to be GENUINELY passionate in YOUR own unique way. If you're not passionate, why should we be interested in what you're saying? Part of being passionate means choosing to highlight the stories that you see fit. Don't cover the story the same way as everyone else. Find ways to look at things in which you know others usually won't, angles that are of interest to you and get you fired up and thinking...and which reflect your unique P.O.V.

4.) Lastly, always be intellectually honest. I think part of why O'Reilly is so successful is because most of the time, he tries to play devil's advocate when covering a story (not always, but for the most part). This is also known in sales and advertising as "Anticipating Resistance". In other words, you're intellectually honest because you recognize and openly acknowledge the other potential P.O.V., and you give it air. By doing so, you get even MORE "street cred" than so-called "Reporters" who are obviously leading us in a desired direction (either overtly, or via “news by deletion”). People aren't dumb. They know when they're being led around. But even when they might agree with someone who is doing this to them, nobody likes to be thought of as a hack! We get more satisfaction (and strength of conviction) as individuals out of honestly addressing the other side's view in the debate. ex; This is part of why I miss Alan Colmes so much. I RARELY agreed with him, but at least I got to hear his side's P.O.V...and this often helped to strengthen my conviction in my own P.O.V. (and Hannity's) because now, having fairly addressed all relevant points, I could honestly say that my convictions were strong based on a fair assessment of both sides. I don't watch Hannity as much anymore…even though I still agree with him for the most part…because there is no genuine and equal conflict there. Make sense? You can create that conflict yourself if need be, by playing "devil's advocate". ;-)

In conclusion, I'd recommend that you simply be true to yourself and to your audience, and the viewers who feel your passion and who share your interests will be there with you. The goal is not to win everyone over who agrees with you, but rather to garner that all-important integrity that comes from being completely honest at all times. Once people believe in you, they'll tune in to what you have to say...even the ones who don't often agree with you! And all simply because, at the very least, they TRUST you.

Trust = respect.

Hope that wasn't too long a read and that it was worthwhile.

I always enjoy reading your blogs, because they inspire me as well. So you’re obviously doing something right! lol ;-)

Keep up the good work.

All the best,

Don M.

Re: The Value of Voice

davidmfreire — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:59:20 -0000

Open journalism invites a journalist to get information with the means that are available to her without consideration and enforcement of the laws, ethics and rules that guide professional journalists.

Without guidance and adherence to the wise men and women whom have established instutions to ensure the protection and privacy from those with means then open journalism is simply an open invitation to satisfy personal vanities while violating another person’s privacy.

Re: The Value of Voice

TJforCongress — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 02:57:18 -0000

Ms. Del Conte,
I feel that - in your case - this is a double edged blade. While you are on-air reporting the news; yes, you must remain unbiased. This provides an unbiased, fair view on the issues being reported. However, once you are off-air and in your own arena, such as this blog; you should be free to voice your opinions.
This is YOUR blog, and it should reflect YOUR views. The fact that you are paid to report the news makes no difference in this particular arena. If you write & post these on YOUR website, on YOUR time, then this should 100% reflect YOUR personal views.

I find it borderline tradgic that many news reporters are villified for expressing their own personal opinions on various topics of discussion - even when expressed off-air.
My advice is this - Express your opinions freely. We have a First Amendment Right in this country, and it should be used as often as possible. The Constitution does not limit the right of Free Speech based on a person's occupation. Personally, I welcome personal opinons from news reporters because it does make them "less robotic" to the individuals who see them day after day being unbiased.

Thanks!

TJ Thompson
www.ThompsonForCongress2010.com
thompson.forcongress.2010-at-gmail-dot-com

Re: The Value of Voice

Frank F. — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:37:17 -0000

I just came back to review this comment and see I mistyped. The last sentence should be:

News has never been opinion free (ahem, Hearst Newspapers in the early 1900's) but we should definitely resist the temptation to not compartmentalize and isolate the opinion from the data.

Abject apologies.