Monthly Archive for January, 2011

Is money all that we want from digital journalism?

‘Entrepreneurial Journalism’ was one of the buzzwords of the last year. As journalism needs to adapt to a new medium, we need to explore a new economical situation. I wonder, however, if recently we sort of ‘carried economies to the extremes’. Is ‘how to make money on the internet’ all that we want from digital journalism?

Journalism is obliged to report to the public, and therefore needs to make money. But as entrepreneurial journalists, the market comes first. Hence, we follow a logic of efficiency, instead of being concerned about society and truthfully reporting. Reading this excellent article by Claire Bishop on the effect of the cuts in the UK opened my eyes. In fact, education and journalism have a lot in common: they both used to address common sense, now they are re-defined to address a market. (And they are re-defined to address a market, not forced.)

Is market the new common sense?

For those who aren’t aware of it, from 2014 on the British university funding of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences will stop. The departments will be forced to follow a market logic meaning their teachers get no public funding; instead they will be paid for by student fees that for this reason will be raised.

Pitched by David Cameron as a “dramatic redistribution of power from elites in Whitehall to the man and woman on the street,” his “Big Society” is basically a laissez faire model of government dressed up as an appeal to foster, how Cameron put it, “a new culture of voluntarism, philanthropy, social action”. Here, Claire Bishop is right in pointing out: this isn’t more capacity to act, it is just is sold as it. You pay, you choose. Fine. But what if you can’t pay?

Once this society believed that democracy is established upon reason, and not money. Thanks to journalism’s critical reporting, you could inform yourself and be part of a political debate. Also, education was a way to give everyone the same chance in this society. You didn’t need money for it, but keep your head. Today, both spheres seem to have lost this function for society. Instead, they follow the logic of the market.

Journalism was always of value because it was more than just entrepreneurial. We need to stop asking how we can make money on the internet. Looking at the internet, publishers should ask themselves how they can generate new jobs, not money, while journalists should aim for a better truthful reporting.

Claire Bishop: Con-demmed to the Bleakest of Futures. Report from the UK. On eflux journal #22.

Jean-Léon Gerôme, Slave-Auction, Hermitage , St Petersburg, Russian Federation

Why Lyotard was wrong, and marketing has a bright future

After I survived the end of the year, i.e. winter darkness, tons of German biscuits, meters deep of snow, several families in several cities, a proper party, plus the challenge to write an essay about something erveryone else has already written wittily about (Wikileaks), it is now back to digitalization and the book.

Yesterday, research made me read Jean-François Lyotard’s ‘Postmodern Condition’ again, a report on the condition of knowledge in the most highly developed societies he wrote in 1979, albeit his reflections on the future of knowledge in a digital era are astonishingly contemporary.

With a few interesting exceptions: He addressed, for example, information still in the mode of scarcity, and it is not; and while he already describes knowledge as something that is produced like a commodity, he attaches it to the state instead of the economy.

Knowledge is and will be produced in order to be sold, it is and will be consumed in order to be valorized in a new production: in both cases, the goal is exchange. | Knowledge ceases to be an end in itself, it loses its ‘use-value’. (5-6)

Back then technological research was basically military research, and science was ’subordinated to the prevailing powers’ (8). Reading Lyotard makes it apparent that this has changed. The internet is firstly subordinated to the economy.

It is conceivable that nation states will one day fight for control of information, just as they battled in the past for control over territory … (6)

This obviously also changed. Iran knows how to produce the atomic bomb, but it lacks the means. Information isn’t something nation states need to fight for, at least not in the same way they were fighting over territories. From the perspective of power and Wikileaks, one can even say if ‘they’ fight over it today, they fight against it.

As we all know, information is now something we drown in. The status of information has switched, and overcharging became what once was scarcity. To be able to filter information, and to know where to search for is becoming a new form of knowledge.

It is very well possible that marketing is a job still totally underestimated; one of the most challenging jobs in the future – and not only vital for serving the economy and selling goods. From a journalist’s perspective we still look down on marketing. I wonder if it is time to think about it differently, and show a bit more respect.

Untitled

Familia Rodante (2004) by Pablo Tradero