What’s Next Now

I was quite excited this morning to read an article in the Irish Times in which a British journalism professor almost completely “gets” what the notion of  ”social media” (i.e. people having conversations) actually means to the future of communication. I really have only one quibble, but it’s a big one because Professor Roy Greenslade makes the foundation of his argument upon a shaky interpretation of the history of how people have communicated:

News travelled slowly for centuries, going only as fast as human messengers could travel, whether by foot, horse or ship. It also tended to be specific – from individual to individual – and controlled. The people received only the news the authorities, church or monarch, deemed fit to release.

That changed in various European countries from the mid-17th century with the foundation of newspapers. Though they had a long struggle to secure the freedom to publish, they did impart “unauthorised” knowledge.

I think this may reveal one of the biggest disconnects that today’s “Old Media” professionals and purveyors have about people in general: when information is shared between two or more people it is seldom kept “specific;” rather, it immediately becomes nuanced byindividual biases, perceptions and interpretations. Information, as is transmitted from one person to another, is necessarily “seasoned” by the unique experience of each party in a conversation coupled with whatever historical or shared understandings the “transmitter” and the “receivers” might share.  When I think about the way people shared “news’ in the past, I’m reminded of this picture of my dad in a general store in 1909 (he’s the one on the stool).

How did these people share "news?"

Had Prof. Greenslade made his argument about the impact of “public illiteracy” on a ruling power’s ability to control the message and, thus, the masses, he’d have had a better point.

While it may be true that rulers, leaders, monarchs, priests and/or other “authorities” have always and will always seek to control how information is disseminated they cannot ever succeed completely in managing how it is received, or, more importantly, how people change it through social interaction and conversation.  This is something the “journalists” or “advertisers” or “marketers” or “PR Pros”of 2010 must come to terms with, and soon, or they will find themselves without a source of income in 2012 or surely by 2015.  In a sense, social media is freeing us to be more like the way we used to be… or perhaps it is just putting us back in touch with the way we are.

There are other parts of the article with which i disagree, but I don’t want to be too hard on Prof. Greenslade.  His Op Ed piece is important to read if you care about the future of the “business of communication,” particularly if you hold a reasonable distrust of people with power and the lengths they will go to keep it.

Popularity: 9% [?]