Traditionally, journalism has filled several important roles in society. Journalists have been the eyes, ears, and voice of public interest. They have been truth-seekers and informants. They have striven to hold individuals and institutions accountable for their actions. Journalists themselves have been held accountable by the public and by the industry. Nearly everyone agrees that journalism and newspapers are changing drastically due to interactive online media that allows for the instantaneous free flow of information around the world. Most of our readings for the last couple weeks have focused on questions like: Who is a journalist in this new world? To whom are journalists accountable? What is a journalist’s role? Will journalism remain economically viable? And how will this massive transition affect societies around the world? While I firmly believe that these and similar questions are invaluable, I feel that one important question has not yet been addressed: How many people are listening to journalists anyway??
During the 25th anniversary symposium of Harvard’s Shorenstien Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy, Jim VandeHei (executive editor and co-founder, Politico) pointed out that when we discuss the unsettled future of journalism we tend to sink into a nostalgic vision of the past in which every citizen was reading the newspaper cover-to-cover on a daily basis with their morning cup of coffee. We envision a “Leave-it-to-Beaver” world overwhelmingly composed of individuals that used the news to keep themselves informed because “it was their duty as upstanding citizens.” “We must not give up our newspapers,” we think to ourselves, “they are a cornerstone of our society!”
Such a nostalgic vision of a super-informed public that was eagerly reading printed daily news for the past few decades is inaccurate. The problem isn’t simply that traditional news media is being lost to information technology (although this is certainly happening). The more fundamental problem is that the proportion of people who were actively engaging with news media before the development of the internet was relatively small and waning to begin with. As we have discussed in class, the New York Times admits that only 10% of the newspaper’s followers are avid and consistent readers. The question the New York Times staff should be asking themselves is not “How do we appeal to the continual economic support of the 10% in order to subsidize our costs of production?” Instead, they should be asking the question, “How do we engage the remaining 90%?”
I agree with famed writer and NYU professor Clay Shirky who states in his essay “Newspapers and Thinking the Unthinkable” that a new form of journalism will inevitably emerge to fulfill its traditional role in society. It may not look like the journalism we know, and it will likely utilize new forms of technology that have not yet been invented or even dreamt of. Still, given people’s desire to know accurate information about the people and institutions that affect them, I believe that “new journalism” (whatever it will look like) will address these concerns after society emerges from this current power shift. As Shirky points out, it may take several decades to complete this turbulent but natural transition.
While I whole heartedly believe that a great amount of thought, time, and energy must be invested in establishing accurate, accountable, and informative forms of “new journalism,” the media should also be trying to figure out how to engage its potential longtail consumers. Instead of simply asking “How will we produce and deliver the news in this new world?” the emerging industry should be asking itself “How do we get more people to pay attention in the first place?”and, similarly, “How do we make readers feel more personally engaged in the stories we report?” It may be no surprise that the answer to these questions likely relies on the very social media that traditional journalists tend to fear.
Today, I am taking a critical look at the Wikipedia entry about pizza. No, I am not joking. Before you roll your eyes at fact that a Harvard graduate student is writing about pizza for a class assignment, you should know that my love of pizza goes well beyond typical conversations and samplings. In truth, the art of pizza-making has been an obsession of mine over the last two years. I am somewhat ashamed to admit that I have gone to great lengths to learn about the food’s history, science, preparation, and cultural variations and influences. I repeat: I am not joking. As an avid baker of Italian breads and home cheese maker, I find few things more satisfying than spending several days preparing for a shared dinner of homemade pizza and wine with friends (my pizza dough recipe calls for five days of fermentation before use). Unfortunately, the frozen-food and pizza delivery industry have painted pizza as a quick, unhealthy snack covered in grease and cheap ingredients. The art of the pizzaioli (“pizza maker”) has largely been lost in the eyes of the general public. Real pizza, simply put, is well-crafted Italian bread with sparse, hand-picked, fresh toppings.
Wikipedia’s article on pizza is part of a series on the beloved food, which I did not realize upon first reading. For instance, the “History” section in the main article is a mere seven sentences and is fairly disjointed. I found this shocking. Granted, my knowledge of the subject is embarrassingly above-average, but, given pizza’s global popularity and rich history, I was expecting a more complete overview. Then, to my delight, I discovered the power of the Wikipedia hyperlink. Hidden within the sparse “History” section was a link to an entire article about the history of pizza. There, I found the history of Neapolitan pizza, which is the grandfather to most forms of modern day pizza and the Holy Grail among pizza enthusiasts. Originally eaten by Neapolitan peasants, it is up to the skilled hand of the pizzaioli to bring out the complexity of the simple dough (which is composed of delicate, rare caputo 00 flour and other very basic, specific ingredients) through the kneading and fermentation processes as well as the exceedingly high cooking temperatures (upwards of 1000°F).
Understanding the development of Neapolitan pizza is essential for understanding the dish in its modern form. The main pizza article briefly mentions Neapolitan-style pies, which is greatly expanded upon in the History of Pizza link. My question is: why not combine them into a single article? (As a side note, I was amazed that there were no Wikipedia articles specifically dedicated to Neapolitan-style pizza.)
Although I was surprised by some of the factoids I stumbled upon while reading the Wikipedia article on pizza, I was surprised at some of the inaccuracies and missing information. It mentions the Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG) status that was bestowed by the European Union to safeguard the integrity of the Neapolitan pizza as a trademark of Neapolitan cuisine. In the same way that fine wines are verified by region and purity, the TSG ensures that all true Neapolitan pizzas must adhere to stringent preparation guidelines. The article mentions two accepted types of Neapolitan pizza (pizza Marinara and pizza Margherita), but indicates a third type called “pizza Margherita extra,” which is blatantly incorrect. Furthermore, the Wikipedia entry specifies that Neapolitan pizzaiolis use “strong flour with high protein content,” which is completely inaccurate. In fact, pizzaiolis specifically use low protein flour (required by TSG for authenticity), which is a defining characteristic of the Neapolitan style.
I could go on and on about the inaccuracies (white pizza by definition never contains pesto or sour cream, Sicilian pizza should not have the ingredients baked directly into the crust, etc.), but my space here is limited.
The readability of the article was fairly poor. Although the internal links, such as the “History of Pizza” link I mentioned previously, were helpful, the main pizza article was a hodgepodge of disjointed facts with little flow for the reader. At one point, the article fragments into short descriptions of a handful of modern pizza variations throughout the world. While this is interesting information, it seems inappropriate that this section encompasses 50 percent of the article. This is especially alarming (“alarming,” to pizza enthusiasts like myself, at least) given that limited factual portion of the article is already riddled with oversights, as I mentioned previously.
Lastly, the sources of the Wikipedia page are also somewhat lacking. When describing the history of pizza, the article cites a publication from American Heritage by Hanna Miller. Unfortunately, the links no longer work. Many of the other sources have to do with government documents, and restaurant information. There are currently several books written about the history and baking of pizza including Everybody Loves Pizza: The Deep Dish on America’s Favorite Food and American Pie, by world renowned baker Peter Reinhart. Unfortunately, I suppose such sources were not cited due to the fact that they are not available online.
Wikipedia is changing the way humans collect and process knowledge. Although my investigation into the website’s portrayal of pizza may seem trivial, it points to potential problems in the way the information is formed. Of course, the beauty of the system is that I can now edit this page and impart my words of wisdom to countless, budding pizza enthusiasts. Without many watchful eyes, important information may slip through the cracks if Wikipedia.
In his book In the Plex: How Google Thinks, Works, and Shapes Our Lives, author Steven Levy describes the rise of Google—an organization that is nearly synonymous with the Internet. Levy provides an in-depth look at the founders of Google, Larry Page and Sergey Brin. He paints Page and Brin as two unlikely and unconventional businessmen who think like engineers and live and dream like starving artists. Their unique talents and visions have had an overwhelming impact on Google’s structure, operation, management, culture, and development.
Google’s guiding principle “Don’t be evil,” is indicative of the culture and structure of the organization. It is a place of ideals (supplying equal access to the history of human knowledge at the push of a button). It is a place of environmental and social responsibility (constantly striving to reduce carbon footprints and promote a more egalitarian relationship among everyday individuals and larger authorities). It is a place of open and at times startling innovation (the idea of implanting a Google microchip in a human brain to give humanity access to the power of Google at all times). Google is beginning to permeate everything we do. Understanding the organization’s history, mission, vision, and capabilities is essential not only for taking advantage of its seemingly infinite number of services but also for watching its movements with a wary eye. It is one of the most influential and powerful bodies of modern times.
Finding what we need on the Internet seems so simple to us now. We “Google” it and a list of relevant topics appear like magic. But, until quite recently, the experience of surfing the net was quite different. As someone who grew up during the United States’ (and the whole world’s!) shift into the digital age, I found Levy’s book fascinating. I am a member of the last generation to be able to recollect the world before the Internet. Likewise, my generation has a memory—albeit a fading memory—of life before Google. Levy is spot-on in his description of Google’s ability to change the way society thinks and acts. Take the early days of Google, for example. As the organization was trying to get off the ground, Page and Brin approached existing search engine agencies like Alta Vista who scoffed at the idea of algorithmic search results based on links and citations. Alta Vista actually depended on inefficient search results to send users to sponsor websites. In hindsight, we laugh at this sort of thinking, but, as Levy constantly points out, such mentalities were quite intuitive at the time. Google’s ability to index the infinite abyss of the Internet and quickly and easily supply it to users at no cost to them has changed everything. It’s changed the way we access and attain knowledge. It’s changed the way we interact. It’s changed the way organizations and governments think.
Though I enjoyed Levy’s account of the history, culture, and future of Google, I do not believe he gave a balanced view of the organization. First, he paints a very rosy picture of the laidback office culture and the “Don’t be evil” organizational mentality. While I have little doubt that there is much truth in his descriptions, I don’t believe he adequately addressed the darker side of Google’s acquisition of power and influence. For example, Google’s ability to tailor search results to appeal to user’s personal interests and opinions may be hurting public discourse and people’s ability to access opposing points of view. Likewise, I found the organization’s desire to implant Google microchips in people’s brains to be quite alarming . Though Levy spends some time describing Google’s antitrust litigations and personal privacy controversies, I feel his critique lacks depth. Google may be one of the most powerful organizations in human history which should raise some eyebrows.
In Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations, author Clay Shirky examines the development of interactive media such as Facebook, Flickr, Wikipedia, Twitter, blogging, and open source software and the societal effects of these modern phenomena. Shirky discusses this evolving media through a variety of lenses, and shows the reader a complex society that is quickly transforming before our very eyes. He examines the social media exchange from a philosophical standpoint (how has blogging changed the traditional definition of a journalist, and what does that mean for society?), a historical framework (why and how have websites like Wikipedia come about, and how are they changing the way humans interact?), a political frame (how are activists using sites like Twitter to subvert governments, police forces, and other institutions?), and an economic standpoint (how is the Internet changing traditional business models, professions, and relationships between people and organizations?).
Shirky points to the progression of sharing, cooperation, and collective action and stresses that each rung in this “social media ladder” is increasingly more difficult to accomplish. Generating and sharing online media is relatively simple—this blog post is an example of that. Coordinating with others in the sphere of online engagement adds another layer of complexity. Finally, one must overcome even more barriers in order to transform that collaborative energy into combined social action in the real world. For instance, one must overcome differences in location, people’s ability and desire to commit to social action, and any authorities that might prevent such action, such as government. However, with the power of social media and the growing size of global networks of individuals, these barriers are becoming increasingly easy to bypass.
The primary role of many social media sites is not to target specific people, locations, or ideas. As Shirky repeatedly states, such a model (which is based on the traditional business relationship of provider-consumer), is inefficient and ineffective. For example, it would make no sense for Meetup.com to use market research to create online social groups and tailor them to specific audiences (for instance, a “Milwaukee Ninjitzu Enthusiasts” Meetup group or a “Bostonian Bread Bakers United” Meetup group). The amount of time and resources Meetup.com would have to emit would be enormous if the organization attempted to discern and provide socializing groups for the public. Instead, as is the case with Meetup and similar social media groups, the role of the site is simply to provide users a platform to connect. The users—not the website administrators—decide what events, areas of interest, and topics to rally behind. This user generated content is the driving force behind a lot of online collaboration and organization. As Shirky points out, the Internet is not creating this desire for collaboration and social action, but merely providing a “location” (online) and tools for people to express tendencies that already exist.
Throughout his book, Shirky discusses ways in which the Internet is breaking down social, political, and economic barriers that traditionally kept individuals from organizing around common causes. This free and instantaneous exchange of information is allowing individuals from around the world to share, discuss, and act on large scale issues. Another great power of these new tools is that they allow large numbers of people to collaborate on relatively small scale issues and transform specialty niches into infinitely large efforts. Shirky uses the example of a group of Catholics who, after a large scale sexual abuse scandal, rallied for drastic reform in the Church. This in itself is not surprising. What’s surprising is that the group garnered support of over 25,000 individuals from all over the world within six months if its inception. The group’s ability to share, cooperate, and act in such a short amount of time and on such a large scale forced the Church—an enormous global institution—to listen and comply with many of their demands.
Shirky also reveals that the power of connectedness is not always to the benefit of society. He gives the example of a group of anorexic teenage girls who pool their resources online to encourage the eating disorder and share tips on how to lose weight and hide their condition from friends and family. Such networks are also available to organized crime and terrorist groups who can collaborate with increasing speed and efficiency. Furthermore, the “armatureization” of professions such as journalism (are bloggers journalists?) and photography is putting people out of work. In his epilogue, the author also stresses that the power of freedom and the ability to subvert governments and organizations will not destroy these structures and lead to anarchy and social chaos. Instead, it will push these institutions to be more efficient and socially responsible.
Here, I wish Shirky had developed the negative side of online interaction a bit more. I’m not sure that I agree with is very optimistic view of online media. Of course I believe in its ability to bring people together in new and innovative ways. The Internet is literally putting the history of human knowledge and the limit of human creativity at our fingers. I agree that, for the most part, this is a good thing. Shirky did not discuss, however, the following points:
- The socioeconomic disparities with regard to internet access and knowledge of technology. Although the power of the Internet is slowly infiltrating and greatly aiding some rural areas and the developing world, as technology and Internet culture explodes, those without access are falling behind at an exponentially greater rate. In order to truly tap into the power of human connectedness, everyone should have the ability to participate.
- The environmental impact of this modern phenomenon is missing from Shirky’s analysis. First, the environmental cost of physically building and updating new hardware is quite large. It is wonderful that so many people are now able to tap into the power Internet, but what about the resources going into the production of personal computers, batteries, and servers (plastics, mercury, silicon, tin, zinc, copper, etc.). Second, the electricity that is being consumed by Internet hardware is growing at an alarming rate—particularly as densely populated countries like China and India industrialize. I’m currently sitting in a Harvard computer lab and am surrounded by dozens of computers, most of which are turned on but not currently in use. Additionally, it takes massive amounts of energy to prevent servers from overheating and failing. Third, as technology companies continually make our current hardware obsolete, we are strongly encouraged (if not compelled) to purchase new, updated hardware. What happens to our old, obsolete computers? They end up in landfills at home or abroad. The rate at which we produce and consume hardware is astounding, and the ability to recycle such products is extremely limited and inefficient. Such a demand for technology is forcing us to exploit the Earth’s resources at an unsustainable rate and increasing the rate of climate change, which has countless social, economic, and ecological implications.
- Shirky did not address some important social costs of online media and Internet connection. It’s true that the Internet puts the history of human knowledge at our finger tips. However, such a strong dependence on technology for maintaining our history, shaping our present, and developing our future can be dangerous. For example, at the click of a button I can look up a Wikipedia page discussing the causes and effects of World Word II. I can read it, and even include my findings in a research paper. However, accessing information is not the same as internalizing and understanding it. Similarly, I can grab today’s copy of the New York Times and scan the headlines. By doing so, I will get a basic understanding of yesterday’s news. However, by not delving into the stories, I limit myself to “headline knowledge,” and likely have very little understanding of the issues of the day.
- Lastly, web surfing is increasingly tailored to the individual experience. While this has many benefits in expanding our exposure new sources of knowledge and encouraging our ability to cooperate, it can also limit our exposure to opposing views and ideas. I recently discovered that even Google searches are tailored to my individual tastes and my tendencies to click on certain types of search results. For instance, if I search Google with the phrase “How has 9/11 affected us?” my search results will be different from those of a politically conservative friend of mine. As someone who tends to read liberal media articles, my search results will be tailored to my tastes. While this may seem convenient, it is actually stunting my worldview and my ability to engage and understand opposing viewpoints. Similarly, if all I do is connect and collaborate with people who all look, think, and act like me, I will never develop new ways of thinking about the world.
hickorystreetdotcom 