In a recent post entitled ‘The Biggest Irony on the Internet,’ Ethan Bauley attempts to draw a line between Social Media on one side and Mass, or Traditional Media on the other. His argument is simply put; if there is a true arena that we insist on calling Social Media then clearly there is its opposite - Mass Media, Traditional Media etc, or Old School Media as I like to call it.

I liked the idea of defining the parameters but not the Google-bait moniker he had come up with to describe it - Industrial Media. [Industrial Media makes me think of heavy industries such as ship building or ordinance factories although it is true that mechanical devices are required to deliver most of old media...] I left a lengthy comment on his post. Here’s an extract - the animal references are a result of another fine post that Ethan referred to on a similar subject entitled ‘Dogs and Birds Can Make Social Media, You Can Too‘ by Bryan Landers.

…..so, when we consider Twitter or FaceBook as “social media” we miss the point. They are just tools that users think have a ’soul’ but there is no there, there, to coin a phrase. We are not connected at all - no dog pee, no ant colony eusocial structure, no bee hives - just blather, photos and updates at the base level.

Social Media vs Industrial Media seems a weak argument to me and just serves to muddy the waters more. Drop the term Social Media altogether and then we can just go back to broadcast, traditional or mass media on the industry side - it’s worked for long enough why change it now? As for what we are all up to online on social sites I would say that arguably we are not connecting the dots - we are sending technological semaphore signals that are being misunderstood, misread or mangled in an attempt to find the results we are expecting. Unfortunately those results will always leave us wanting. Throw a party, go to a concert, commune with your inner animal to remind yourself what socializing really means….or just follow a dog around its neighborhood and see how many times it stops to pee.

Here’s Ethan’s reply - “Ultimately, trying to define “social media” or “industrial media” isn’t really the game I hope to play, and I should be more transparent about that. In fact I think that pursuing a definition as an outcome of this discussion is tantamount to trying to “decide” whether or not In A Silent Way is “jazz.”

My goal instead is to share a little insight about what I’ve learned from books like TWoN, get some feedback on my thoughts, and help others and myself make better business decisions through an understanding of information economics (production, distribution, and consumption). Reading and thinking about comments like yours, I’m feeling pretty good about that goal.

In general, I find it a lot easier and more fun to design businesses and marketing plans while pursuing a systematic study of the economic differences between dog pee, Usenet, cable TV, et al. To that end, you might love Brian Haven’s piece from last week, All Media Is Social, which is kind of the happy medium between Benkler and your comment.”

Ethan is right, I do like Brian Haven’s post ‘All Media Is Social.’ He at least considers Nature.

When we wrongly consider technology as a ‘new’ medium that simply and efficiently transformed culture, business and society, we forget our own human ancestry. We leave out Nature. In our hearts we want to belong, to share; we fear dying alone and as we age we become thanatophobic - we fear dying. Individuality is an illusion. [By that I don't mean an individual's style, taste, fashion etc, things that set us apart aesthetically from others, I mean we are forever bound to being social animals.]

Here’s an extract from an essay of mine called ‘On Social Media, Blogs and Advertising:

“most people that take a position on social networking and advertising come at it from a technological point of view, as in “technology has created the means for everyone to be connected and to stay in touch.” I disagree with that statement because it removes nature from the game. It is entirely natural for humans to want to interact as often as possible as we are all social animals. Cities are no more artificial (technological) than the hives of bees. Therefore the Internet is as natural as a spider’s web. People who believe that technology is driving our interactions are missing the point - we ourselves are technological devices, invented by ancient bacterial communities as a means of genetic survival.”

As for marketers who wish to advertise on social networking sites, they must first consider our everyday lives before they consider our online ‘personas,’ - the ones we all make up as we fill out our profiles on social network sites. We are far more complicated than those shadowy online personalities suggest. Marketers wishing to reach the millions of people in social network sites face the same conundrum that pollsters face during a general election - if a Republican candidate for office were to ask a registered Republican which way she will vote he will get the answer she thinks he wants to hear - “for you of course.” But behind the secrecy of the ballot box curtains she will vote the way her heart tells her. In my online profile I may lie about my age, my sex and my race, my income level, my home town, my likes and my dislikes and more.

But, am I really lying? Maybe I am just reinventing myself for the digital age - giving people the information they think they want which can easily be shared with other people who also think they want it. Good luck marketing to me.

Individual innovation and creativity in our society are the cornerstones of our economy. They create wealth and improve the nation’s welfare. Through innovations, the 20th century became the American Century. Will the 21st century be so as well or will it become the Global Century? How, if at all, would your administration foster innovation in the following areas: the provision of health care for our citizens; an immigration policy that attracts and retains the best; educational policies that increase the value of our human capital, our most important resource; helping people accumulate enough retirement savings; international trade and manufacturing; the evolution of information technology, biotechnology, nanotechnology and neuroscience; the allocation of water, food and energy and the development of alternative energy sources; and, to some, the most important, the environment?

— MYRON S. SCHOLES, who shared the Nobel prize in economics in 1997

More questions here.

Pic ©Losanjealous.com

We live in a world of constant updating. News moves swiftly from PDA to mobile phone to laptop to desktop in seconds. We Twitter, we text, we temper our every moment if we are not careful; we modify our immediate world-view for consumption online to passive recipients who make what they will of our digital discourse. Who owns the information that you have set free? Dwell on that a minute as I move on.

Google is your friend for research and your archenemy if you don’t own what Google’s spiders discover as they crawl every nook and cranny of the web. The information that others post about you or your company should reference content that you have delivered, written and posted yourself and preferably be content that can be verified easily from third party sites and other online sources. Own your message, if you don’t someone else will.

Today I received an email from the publicists for the indie rock band, The Airborne Toxic Event [we'll leave the Don Delillo reference aside for now,] which contained an open letter to a ‘music critic,’ Ian Cohen, who works for the indie music fans’ online bible, Pitchfork. In short, in his review of the band’s new album, he eviscerated it as a work of musical plagiarism.

Cohen is of course entitled to his opinion, his purview as a critic demands it. He is a filter and an influencer and he writes for Pitchfork which in turn operates within those same modern parameters; Pitchfork has taken on the mantle of challenging the once-hallowed print journals of music criticism and therefore its responsibility does not end at the node of an ISP. Within that responsibility lies a problem - the print magazines had editors. Editors who once were the filters and influencers, soft blocking and often hard balling writers who turned in weak copy, guiding and counseling writers who had the metaphorical fish on the line and teaching them how to land the story. The internet has swept that aside and Pitchfork has happily built and attached its business to those loose moorings.

Worse still, Pitchfork does not embrace openness - you cannot comment on any of the posts - it’s a good old-fashioned web site, so communication is restricted and readers opinions will never be taken in to consideration.

And that’s why The Toxic Airborne Events’ open letter to the music blogs of the world was a very smart move. They were able to calmly and sensibly challenge Ian Cohen’s review without stooping to the same low levels that his review had reached. They took the high road. They accept his criticism but challenge the presumptions he has formed about the band - “You’re wrong about our intentions, you’re wrong about how this band came together, you don’t seem to get the storytelling or the catharsis or the humor in the songs, and you clearly have some misconceptions about who we are as a band and who we are as people.”

And they don’t hold back as they defend the music scene in Silverlake and Los Feliz that was once much lauded by writers such as Cohen - “….it also seems to have very little to do with us. Much of your piece reads less like a record review and more like a diatribe against a set of ill-considered and borderline offensive preconceptions about Los Angeles. Los Angeles has an extremely vibrant blogging community, Silver Lake is a very close-knit scene of bands. We’re one of them. We cut our teeth at Spaceland and the Echo and have nothing to do with whatever wayward ideas you have about the Sunset Strip. That’s just bad journalism.”

In the face of a negative online story The Airborne Toxic Event did exactly right thing - they responded immediately and intelligently. No Pitchfork swift-boating for them.

Directed by Aaron Rose and Joshua Leonard

Co-director Aaron Rose will introduce the film this Friday at 7:15PM, Saturday at 3:00PM and Saturday at 7:15PM and will hold a Q and A afterward. Cinema 21.

BEAUTIFUL LOSERS celebrates the spirit behind one of the most influential cultural moments of a generation.

Here’s the synopsis:
In the early 1990’s a loose-knit group of likeminded outsiders found common ground at a little NYC storefront gallery. Rooted in the DIY (do-it-yourself) subcultures of skateboarding, surf, punk, hip hop and graffiti, they made art that reflected the lifestyles they led. Developing their craft with almost no influence from the “establishment” art world, this group, and the subcultures they sprang from, have now become a movement that has been transforming pop culture.

Starring a selection of artists who are considered leaders within this culture, Beautiful Losers focuses on the telling of personal stories. It speaks to themes of what happens when the outside becomes “in” as it explores the creative ethos connecting these artists and today’s youth.

Watch the trailer here.

I’m not sure that this is quite the news we’ve been waiting for but News Corp, owners of MySpace, have announced that users on MySpaceTV can now directly upload their videos, or rather upload a video of themselves in front of the web cam, by hitting a record button. It’s as simple as going to the ‘Upload a Video’ link, fill out the video description and then hit ‘Record a Video.’ The world will now be a better place.