It seems a common trait when “new” means of communication arise for there to be a bit of the “tsk tsk” from folks who don’t seem to “get it.” It can happen with a medium, or with a message (think rock ‘n’ roll and blogging).

Lately, it’s happening with Twitter, in particular, and “social media” in general.

The latest examples to fall into this vein of luddism are from Margaret Wente of the Globe and Mail, Jenny McCarthy of the Telegraph UK, and Robert G. Picard of The Media Business.

I encourage you to read those three pieces and the points made in them. Then come back.

Now, I’m not going to get into how many times I’ve heard these points raised about every different new platform for expression that comes along (recalling the professor who described blogging as “the mental equivalent of masturbation”). And I’m not going to debate whether telling everyone about your “banal” existence actually achieves any worthwhile ends. There are certainly problems with social media.

But I do want to say that all this “narcissism” is a good thing from a historical perspective.

Bear with me for a little biographical backstory: While attending South Carolina for my Ph.D. courses, I was able to take a course in journalism history that was very informative, and led to a conference paper that I was actually quite pleased with. (see the Academic Resources section of this site for a PDF version).

But one thing I learned from journalism history is that there are an awful lot of “holes” in the historical record. Source documents are remarkably limited. Secondary sources like news reports are remarkably limited. What brought this home to me was listening to Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina talk about protests where he was arrested and not a single word appeared in the local newspaper.

Then there are lives that are lived outside the glare of cameras and media attention. Ordinary people who exist as unemployment statistics, or productivity statistics. If you were to do research on these people, you’d likely find some gov’t documents, maybe, as McCartney noted, “a few photographs,” but precious little else.

The beauty of social media from a historical perspective is that there is a greater chance that the lives of individual real people can be saved for the historical record. A fuller picture of the people who surround us will be available for future historians, for future generations. That doesn’t mean it will all have equal value. But it could be available. I wish more of my great-grandfather’s life was available for me to know about, to learn from.

One thing social media allows that past media platforms don’t is the ability to put more of “yourself” into the medium. TV doesn’t allow that. How many historical nuggets did we lose to people watching “Must See TV” instead of living their lives?

Of people listening to crap top-40 radio instead of creating their own music?

Now let’s turn that around: What if you had access to your great-great-grandparents’ Twitter feeds, Facebook updates, Flickr photos, and YouTube mashups? Not to mention their iTunes playlists? Could you get a better idea of who they were than looking at a few faded posed pictures, maybe an old diary, and some government records?

That can’t be a bad thing.

Related posts:

1. ESPN the latest big media corp to struggle with social engagement

This morning’s Random Idea is called the Unicorn Chaser sidebar.

We’ve all seen the “related content” links that show on a web site’ story page. Here’s one from the New York Times:

So the idea is this: people are always complaining that there’s not enough “good news” being told. What if you created a “related content” box that featured good news as an antidote to the bad news you’re reading currently.

I’m calling it the Unicorn Chaser box in honor of Boing Boing’s original Unicorn Chaser.

For instance, let’s say you were reading an article about how disgusting and unclean doctors’ lab coats are, an article by the Wall Street Journal. (aside: why is this article in the “opinion” section? Does that diminish the factual basis for the article? Shouldn’t it be in the “Health” section?) Obviously, this is the type of article that can put you off your breakfast, especially if you’ve recently been in a doctor’s office. So, to counteract that mental disturbance, In the article sidebar, you’d see something like this:

Click for larger version

Some people will dismiss this with a wave of the haughty hand and a suggestion that it’s somehow beneath journalism to provide links to positive stories. To which I respond: why? If it’s information, why not link to it from disparate places on your web site? Is it a little bit “light”? compared to all the heavy-hitting innovation that’s happening these days? Sure. But why can’t we try some light with the heavy subject matter?

Thoughts?

No related posts.

For the past five days, I’ve been riveted by the media frenzy over vice presidential pick Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska. What strikes me most is the way the media – print, tv, radio, online – have rushed to fill in the details on the sketchy knowledge available about the candidate.

They say that nature abhors a vacuum. I would suggest that the media abhors a vacuum even more. Since the announcement, we’ve learned about Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy, “Troopergate,” her support for the “Bridge to Nowhere,” her husband’s involvement in the Alaska Independence Party, her lobbying for federal funds for local project, her role in a 527 for Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, and who knows what will turn up in the days to come.

Also fascinating was the Wikipedia battle that arose from the appearance of a user “YoungTrig,” who began editing Palin’s Wikipedia entry the day before the announcement. Check out this NPR story for more details on that angle.

What to make of all this? Certainly there has been a rush from both the G.O.P. and the Democrats to “define” Palin one way or the other. But the definition is hinging on the reporting of media outlets and bloggers, responding to a wide-open v.p. pick with the type of reporting you probably wouldn’t have seen had the pick been a “known quantity” like Min. Gov. Pawlenty or former presidential aspirant Mitt Romney.

It’s too soon to see what damage all these revelations might have on the McCain campaign, but it’s fascinating to watch the media in action. Naturally, the McCain campaign has complained that the media are being “vicious and scurrilous” in their Palin stories.

I don’t really see that as the case. The media are doing their job. They are retroactively vetting the McCain vice presidential pick. They did the same to a lesser extent with Joe Biden, Barack Obama’s pick. But Biden was a known entity. He’d been a presidential candidate twice, and a senator for a long time. If Obama (who has had his own taste of the media scrutiny) had picked a little-known governor from a small (population) state, he’d have witnessed the same intense scrutiny of his pick.

Related articles by Zemanta

• McCain Says Palin Always a Republican
• Palin Coverage Squeezes McCain [Sarah Palin]
• Media blamed for Palin woes
• Republicans rebut claims they failed to vet Sarah Palin
• Advisers craft Palin’s introduction

Related posts:

1. College media bowl coverage list