"We the Media" review, part 3: Selected quotes

September 14 2004

I finished reading Dan Gillmor's We the Media over the weekend.  As previously discussed in my first and second postings about this book, I've found it to be incredibly powerful -- and empowering -- discussion of how the world of social software is changing the face of journalism and media.
Chapter 9 of this book discusses "Trolls, spin, and the boundaries of trust".  This is a topic we know something about here at edbrill.com, so I really focused on the book's messages.  Not surprisingly, Gillmor documents a number of occasions on which troll/spin behvior has been detected, had unplanned consequences, or otherwise been thrust in the spotlight through social software...

Technology has given us a world in which almost anyone can publish a credible-looking web page.  Anyone with a computer or cell phone can post in online forums.  Anyone with a moderate amount of skill with Photoshop or other image-manipulation software can distort reality.  Special effects make even videos untrustworthy.
We have a problem here.
Now, this is no great revelation to most of us.  What is interesting is what Gillmor describes in the subsequent pages,  He suggests that anytime you read something online, it is useful to try to establish the credentials of the writer.  I agree -- years ago, I smacked someone at Microsoft for quoting an anonymous posting on notes.net in one of their competitive papers (and of course, saying that the quote originated from the Lotus website).  
Gillmor:
...advances in technology are likely to bring us better ways ot gauge and, in effect, manage reputations and verify a commenter's bona fides without exposing his or her actual identity to the world.
Googling someone, to see what else he or she has said online in other places, sounds like a good way to start.  But it ultimately isn't the answer.   If, however, someone has been using a consistent pseudonym, at least we have the possibility of knowing if a person is reputable or has been making trouble elsewhere.
At the moment, my favorite solution is not the most practical: if everyone had a blog or other kind of website, they could include a link as a kind of digital signature... Again, I would do nothing to stop anonymity on the Internet.  But if we are going to have serious online discussions, I think all parties should, with very few exceptions, either be willing to verify who they are, or risk having their contributions be questioned and, in some cases, ignored.
While provocative, I think this is a fascinating idea in concept.  However, I also think there are a ton of places on the web where anonymity (as best as can be provided) is the only way that anyone will feel safe enough to share information.  It's a tough question.
Gillmor also provides an example which hit close to home for me:
[Adam] Gaffin runs an online forum called "Wicked Good" on the Boston Online site.  A 2003 forum thread talked about a fictional company in a soap opera holding a "Sexiest Man" contest.  Someone named "dixie wrecked" was talking up the contest and the TV show.  Gavin got suspicious and checked the Internet address from which "dixie" was posting, and discovered it originated at a Washington-based firm, New Media Strategies, a company that offers, according to its website, online word-of-mouth marketing to create buzz about products and brands. ...
I don't mean to pick on New Media Strategies here, or to suggest that its mistake in this case represents the company's general methods.  I do want to suggest that just one such episode, if it's caught and then stirs up any degree of irritation online, can be a lasting blemish.
(and no, I didn't include that quote just so google hits for "sexiest man" will end up on my site ;))
More in part four.

Ed Brill | Highland Park, IL USA Category:  Blogging  Add/View Comments [6]

Post a Comment

  1. 1  Philip Storry  | 9/14/2004 3:09:53 PM

    So what we need is a blogging client that autonmatically signs your posts wih PGP/GPG before submitting them?

    Interesting idea... And by not making signing mandatory, we get to keep anonymity. The ecosphere divides into three broad categories - those willing to leave an established trail (signers) so that they can be "trusted". Those preferring to maintain their anonymity and troll. And special areas where anonymity is valued anyway, and trollers are just put up with.

    Sounds like some old BBSes I've used, actually... ;-)

  1. 2  Pete Snyder  | 9/28/2004 7:37:45 AM

    apologize for being late to the discussion (late to the dance by I guess by two weeks...), and full disclosure, this is my 1st time posting on here, Ed, but hope I can add some relevant comments that add value. As Ed points out from Dan's book - my company New Media Strategies - was rightfully tagged for stupid, irrelevant posts in Adam's community. Dan's points were dead on and we deserved a smack - this was a mistake by one of my people, and as the head honcho over here I'm ultimately responsible. (I'm appreciative that Dan allowed that he "isnt suggesting that its mistake in this case represents the company's general methods" because it doesn't). Now, we use this as an example of "how not" to communicate and represent oneself online. The issues you guys are bringing up here are good ones to ponder. I know I have done so in some depth.

    Given that I penned an op-ed a little while ago in Brandweek on the need for some industry standards in "viral marketing" so as not to have repeats of this kinda stuff and also, so as not to open the flood doors to the practice of using minors as a "marketing distribution model" (getting kids to pimp products to their unaware friends). Don't have a link to it, so I'll cut and paste into the next post, if that is ok... Interested in your thoughts here or also feel free to ping me at pete@newmediastrategies.net. Thanks again.

    Pete Snyder

  1. 3  Pete Snyder  | 9/28/2004 7:38:28 AM

    Here is that Standards Oped:

    Wanted: Standards For Viral Marketing

    By Pete Snyder

    June 28, 2004

    WHEN marketers talk about direct online, or "viral" marketing, what we're really talking about is an extension of the oldest form of advertising in the world■word of mouth■on the newest platform: the Internet.

    Brands rely on this type of marketing as an alternative to traditional methods to engage customers, and as a result, spread information about their brands both on- and later off-line. But as with any technique, whether TV advertising, direct marketing, or online branding, there's a right way and a wrong way to go.

    Whether we call it buzz, peer marketing, chatter or online posting, Web-based marketing provides marketers with one-of-a-kind, real-time, dynamic access to users who are discussing a multitude of issues, products and services in their own unvarnished terms. More so, it allows what in the past was "the nameless, faceless corporation" to have real, honest and open exchanges with consumers and build valuable relationships for the future.

    But given an online culture that embraces anonymity, viral marketing can be murky territory. As the practice continues to grow, it's time the industry implemented some concrete guidelines and standards to keep ourselves from jeopardizing a tremendous marketing tool.

    Online consumers■ like those in general■are increasingly sensitive to advertising and pr intrusions. Part of the success of word of mouth marketing comes from the fact that chat rooms, message boards and blogs are among the few places in a highly commercialized world where people can still get away from being bombarded by ads, let their hair down, say what they think, assert their individuality and find information they deem interesting that's not being pushed on them.

    The long-term success and viability of online word-of-mouth marketing depends on agreeing to adhere to some basic ethical guidelines; a few standards of conduct to make sure our business continues to be a beneficial tool in relationship and brand building■and not an exercise in deception. As marketers, there is a short but critical list of things we need to abide by:

    Honesty and sticking to the facts. Online efforts allow marketers to be more frank and honest with consumers than almost any other venue. Where else can a marketer tell you the latest movie probably won't win any Oscars, but is a surefire hit for anyone who wants action, fun and big name stars? When posting information about products or companies, we do ourselves and our clients a favor when we provide not just information that's useful to our audience and helpful for our clients, but also facts that can be verified and supported by third-party information.

    Respect and community. When it comes to online groups, we are all guests in the same house, and part of a larger community. We need to bring knowledge to the community, respect its culture, and aim to add value and information where people seek it out. It's not just good etiquette, it's good business.

    Identity. Anonymity is one of the great advantages of the Net■a core part of what makes the experience so unique, and so appealing to the millions of us who go online every day. But abusing this intrinsic anonymity with intentionally deceptive tactics undercuts the very trust that allows people to feel comfortable expressing themselves on the Web, and poisons its benefits. The standard should be simple: It's great to embrace the "rules" of the Internet, to use screen names or be anonymous, but it's definitely not OK to be a wolf in sheep's clothing and misrepresent oneself.

    Responsibility. Online word of mouth is a great way to promote products, inform customers and preserve reputations, but there are a lot of ways to spoil the field for everyone. Every company involved in this business must take action to make sure their campaigns and employees play by the rules. That means clear instructions from above, and strict adherence from below.

    Accountability. We need to abide by a code of conduct, and hold ourselves accountable when we don't. Everyone makes mistakes■no company is perfect, including mine■but we'll make far fewer of them if we put firm guidelines in place, and perform regular audits to ensure our staffs behave properly.

    The bottom line: Be honest and respectful to maintain a very potent and innovative tool that benefits consumers and companies alike. If these rules are not followed, marketers risk losing a remarkably personal, informative and promising means of putting companies in touch with their customers.

  1. 4  Christopher Byrne http://www.controlscaddy.com/ | 9/28/2004 8:40:42 AM

    Pete,

    I commend you for this piece and stepping up to the mat. Only time will tell if your words are followed in practice.

    I will take you to task for one paragraph:

    "Identity. Anonymity is one of the great advantages of the Net■a core part of what makes the experience so unique, and so appealing to the millions of us who go online every day. But abusing this intrinsic anonymity with intentionally deceptive tactics undercuts the very trust that allows people to feel comfortable expressing themselves on the Web, and poisons its benefits. The standard should be simple: It's great to embrace the "rules" of the Internet, to use screen names or be anonymous, but it's definitely not OK to be a wolf in sheep's clothing and misrepresent oneself."

    There is *NO* anonymity on the net, If there was, companies such as yours and the Radicati Group would not have gotten "busted" for the astroturfing. Unfortunately, it is this misconception that leasd to consumers problems with privavcy and security on the net. As the courts have said, there is *NO* reasonable expectation of privacy on the Internet.

    You can see my postings in this topic at

    { Link }

    I also invite you to vist the Radicati wiki to see how powerful the backlash can be: { Link }

    I am going to pass your posting on to Scott Shamp, Director of the New Media Institute at the University of Georgia ({ Link } as he might be interested.

  1. 5  Pete Snyder  | 9/28/2004 11:15:34 AM

    Thanks for the comments. Yes, saw how the good folks here roughed up that group, and fair point about anonymity. my point is more that it should not be abused - as it was in the case dan mentioned with us and as in the case you and ed spoke of. Would enjoy connecting with Scott we do a lot of work with the head of new media at LSU (though I think the 'dawgs are ranked higher in polls right now!).

  1. 6  Christopher Byrne http://www.controlscaddy.com/ | 9/28/2004 11:57:47 AM

    and after Saturday, the Dawgs will still be ranked higher:-) :

    { Link }