Twitter  Is the river behind your house rising? A British Twitter bot will tell you nie.mn/1kQfI9f  
Nieman Journalism Lab
Pushing to the future of journalism — A project of the Nieman Foundation at Harvard

“That heady feeling of being totally integrated”: The elusive promise of community, flattened and “real”

In the future-of-journalism business, we’re obsessed with adoption: getting online, getting hip to the web, leaving old analog practices behind, embracing the interactivity of social media. For a long time, not getting online — not getting hip to the digital program — seemed the provenance of clueless curmudgeons, middle-aged city desk editors, and Andrew Keen. Rightly, I think, we’ve devoted most of our energy to figuring out the details of what Jay Rosen has called “the migration point of the press tribe.” Getting to the other side of the chasm means getting wired in.

One of the things I always loved about Scott Rosenberg’s book Say Everything was that it covered enough historical time that it was as much a book about blogs ending as it was a book about the adoption of blogging. Over the last few weeks, we’ve been lucky enough to read several fantastic pieces that I think speak to this question of “getting offline” in ways that go beyond the usual curmudgeonly prattle. Two writers went down this road voluntarily: Marc Ambinder wrote a farewell post called “I am a Blogger No Longer,” and Zadie Smith, in a review of The Social Network, referred to herself a 1.0 person living in a 2.0 world, a person who killed her Facebook page after a few weeks. A third blogger, however — Ruth Gledhill of The Times of London — was forced to shut down her blog when the newspaper she worked for went behind a paywall. No openness to the Internet, no point in running a blog.

For me, it was Gledhill’s comments about “life behind the paywall” that got me thinking. “In one sense,” she wrote:

I have my ‘life’ back as my blog took up all of my waking hours when I wasn’t writing news stories and I was neglecting our son and other areas of my life outside work. It was definitely an addiction. When I was wired up, I felt physically part of the internet, the blogosphere. I still miss that heady feeling of being totally integrated with the ‘ether’.

Ambinder’s comments about non-blog journalism being “ego free” may have garned the most attention on Twitter, but I think Robin Sloan of Snarkmarket is right when he flags this as the piece’s key point. Ambinder’s point intersects well with Gledhill’s:

The mere fact that online reporters feel they must participate in endless discussions about these subjects is something new, a consequence of the medium, and is one reason why it can be so exhausting to do primarily web journalism. The feedback loop is relentless, punishing.

The fact that one of these comments is primarily positive (“wired up,” “physically part of the internet,” “heady feeling,” “totally integrated”) while the other is negative (“endless discussions,” “exhausting,” “relentless,” “punishing”) makes it clear to me that both writers are talking about the same thing. They’re talking about an intensive process of speaking and listening, grounded in a social network that is itself embedded within a dynamic community. In both cases, the journalist is open, responsive, locked in…and open and responsive to a network of ultimately real people, not to some abstract entity that looms just over your left shoulder. This would be a hard feeling to describe to someone who had never Tweeted, blogged, surfed an RSS feed, or gotten lost on Facebook, but if you’ve gotten this far you probably have some idea of what I’m talking about. There’s a certain frisson there. I can actually feel it as I write this post.

Having spent many years teaching and befriending journalists, and having participated in some poorly defined acts of citizen journalism myself, it seems that people generally go into journalism for a number of reasons. I’ve found that my would-be journalism students are usually curious. They want to get to the bottom of things; they deal in practical reality, not theory; and they (let’s face it) love to snoop. They’re practical, inquisitive, fact-minded folks.

In addition to them, though, I know a number of journalists who went into the industry because their communicative work gave them the chance to ground themselves in a particular community, to be embed themselves within a particular public. They want to stand near the center of the communications circuit. They want to listen to people and tell them things, all at the same time. They want to learn new things, things that matter to individuals and groups, and then tell them about it. They want to know that they’ve made a difference, that the people have heard them.

One of the things I think you realize as a journalist, however, is that your “public” quickly gets reduced to your beat, and your community most often consists of folks we might call “sources” (an ugly phrase). In everyday terms, the best journalists spend most of their time talking to a rather limited group of people — and even when that circuit of people expands they’re still primarily dealing with people they usually refer to as a “source.” Journalists are workers, and as workers, they become attuned to practices that make the most logical sense, that help them do their job, and get them out the door headed towards home as quickly as possible. For journalists, the practical necessities of journalism narrow the scope of the public.

This is why I think so many journalists get so excited about the social possibilities of digital technology. In the most basic sense, “the shock of community” that the Internet provides gets represented by quantitative audience metrics. Whatever audience-tracking tools may or may not be doing to the editorial process, there’s no mistaking the fact that when reporters first encounter those heady sheets of Omniture data, it blows their minds. “Finally! The invisible audience has returned! These are the people I cared about when I first went into reporting…I forgot about them — but here they are!” In more poetic terms, it’s what Gledhill talks about when she writes that “I felt physically part of the internet, the blogosphere…totally integrated with the ‘ether’.” It’s not just metrics, but it’s comments, links, email, and conversation.

When I was doing research in Philadelphia, this is how a local journalist/blogger described the evolution of his blog:

…the key lesson is that my blog got picked up and accepted as being an authentic part of the blogging community, which in his case was the left-wing blogosphere. And the way I did that was to link to these other blogs, to engage with them, and to seek them out. Some of our other blogs that are run by journalists are struggling with how to gain that acceptance. I remember a moment in September 2003 when one of my posts was linked by the leftwing website Buzzflash [which was popular at the time]. Comments came rolling in. Emails to me went through the roof — that was the kind of national attention I was looking for!

Ambinder, on the other hand, points to the aftermath of that social-network high: the endless comment moderation, the exhaustion that digital immersion can cause. And Zadie Smith goes one step further. For Smith, the community journalists have been so excited to rediscover isn’t actually real. It’s limited. It’s flattened. On Facebook,

If the aim is to be liked by more and more people, whatever is unusual about a person gets flattened out. One nation under a format. To ourselves, we are special people, documented in wonderful photos…Software may reduce humans, but there are degrees.

Smith’s point is philosophical: digital technology reduces us. Like any grand philosophical point, it’s ultimately unprovable, which is why I’ve tried to come at it from an oblique angle, by talking about publics and journalism. Does online journalism give us a community that’s more real, or less real, than the one we leave behind? I think that digital technology does flatten people. But it flattens more than just people. It flattens objects, concepts, publics, and relationships as well. And it’s not just digital technology that flattens things; the daily act of working, of day-to-day practical living flattens things too.

Reporters may go into journalism to be with the public; they eventually find beats and sources and the daily grind instead. Reporters may go online to find a community more responsive than the one they encounter in their daily work, but it’s a community that can be exhausting, pummeling, and not quite real. So get offline if you wish. Get online if you can. But in either case, never make the mistake in thinking that you’ve found a community, a public, a reality, that’s more authentic than the one you’ve left behind. We can’t will authentic community into being. It sort of sneaks up on us. And just as quickly — as soon as we turn our heads — it’s gone.

Photo by Matthew Field used under a Creative Commons license.

                                   
What to read next
Mashable_GrumpyCat-cc
Joseph Lichterman    July 22, 2014
The site known for social media and tech coverage has hired nearly 30 more editorial staffers since October and, like BuzzFeed before it, is expanding into more general interest news.
  • Megan Garber

    Beautiful essay; thanks for it. It occurred to me as I was reading it how meager our terms are for conveying the world we’re now in, how poorly able they are to capture the potential and utter excitement of what you’re describing: the new compact journalism is forming between its practitioners and its consumers.

    In the past (the days of paper monopolies, broadcast hegemonies, etc.), we tended to think of journalists as creators of worlds — news being, as Gaye Tuchman has noted, “a constructed reality” — rather than as, more broadly, conveners of community. And that wasn’t, I think, just a matter of the public being largely mysterious — immeasurable, unmeetable, unknowable; it was also a matter of the public being fairly static. A Daily News subscriber was a Daily News subscriber, and would remain so a). indefinitely, b). until he didn’t feel like paying for it anymore, or c). until the paper did something to outrage him into canceling his subscription. Scrimp, spite, or stay: Those were basically your membership options. So news’ publics had borders, but they were etched in space, rather than time: Communities were, for their members, opt-out propositions. And that made them, as well, fairly static propositions.

    Now, though, as you point out, communities coalesce and disband in ways that are as unpredictable as they are organic. And yet our terminology doesn’t always capture that fluidity: Though we talk about news as a matter of movement and flow — the “river of news,” “news stream,” etc. — we tend to talk about (which is to say, to think about) communities as static things. “Public” — a word that should suggest the churn and buzz and rhythm and reach of an empowered citizenry — instead conveys a sense of dutiful passivity. “Public” works. “Public” records. “Public” toilets. Etc. And so even the terms that should fill us with total excitement — the familiar frisson of otherpeopleoutthere-ness that you’re talking about — instead become a literal buzzkill. (“Public” journalism. Thud.)

    Which is, I guess, all to say: I wish we had better language to talk about this stuff. We fret all the time about the semantics of the newsgatherer (“who is a journalist?” etc.) and the semantics of the news consumer (“user”? “person formerly known as audience member?” etc.), but we think less about the best ways to describe that bubbling, buzzing, yearning mass of people who are both present and potential at once — the collective of individuals who may consume one day and produce the next and then, because they can, do both at once. The people who are, after all, the whole point.

  • http://sethlewis.org/ Seth Lewis

    Chris, what a beautifully written piece … followed by an equally compelling comment, Megan. Kudos to you both.

    I don’t have a lot to add — you’ve both captured this all so nicely — but in reference to Gledhill’s comment, the part I found just as interesting was the initial sentence: “In one sense, I have my ‘life’ back as my blog took up all of my waking hours when I wasn’t writing news stories and I was neglecting our son and other areas of my life outside work.” When you talk to journalists today (and, admittedly, I’m generalizing a bit), there’s a certain excitement about new opportunities that’s also tinged with a bit of nostalgia for what’s being lost (a yin-yang pull of ‘getting online’ vs. longing for offline, you might say). But there’s also a growing, gnawing concern about the pace of the work and the seeming futility in trying to keep up; it’s the speed and the demands and the never-ending news cycle (as CJR’s Hamster Wheel cover put it so well recently). And just as you talk about the “flattening” effects of digital media, particularly in relation to publics and social networks, I also sometimes wonder about the extent to which digitization flattens other aspects of our lives — namely, our time, as digital media engagement blurs the boundaries between work and “my life outside work,” as Gledhill put it.

    Does ‘getting online’ endanger that life outside work (by virtue of its always-on social engagement) in a way that staying offline doesn’t? Or, is the process of losing touch with one’s personal life simply a function of our condition today — of working in an increasingly contingent, precarious, and demanding market economy?

    Just some questions for thought. Chris and Megan, thanks again for sharing!

  • http://www.twitter.com/sean_oneill Sean O’Neill

    Huh?

    “For Smith, the community journalists have been so excited to rediscover isn’t actually real.”

    Zadie Smith’s essay was exclusively about Facebook, and whatever platform might replace Facebook. She never once mentioned journalists or the comments sections of journalist’s blogs. It is a wild leap to say that she thinks identity is as flattened when you post a comment to an editorial on, say, the LA Times’s website. I don’t think that follows at all from what she wrote.

    A more relevant reflection would be Andrew Sullivan’s practice of not allowing comments on his blog. I have a hunch–though I’m not sure–that he does that partly because it is *exhausting* to feel you have to police or fact-check or respond to comments posted on your blog/site.

    Maybe if Mark had been allowed to cherry-pick the most useful/provocative comments and contexts from his reader, he would be building an authentic community that’s enduring (a la Sullivan’s website). (Personally, I’m not a fan of Sullivan’s blog, but the consistency of his engagement statistics speak for themselves.)

  • Pingback: Yesterday’s Links | Josh Braun's Blog

  • Pingback: This Week in Review: The future of NewsBeast, Facebook Messages, and Yahoo doubles down on content » Nieman Journalism Lab

  • http://butterflyhunt.tumblr.com/ Ernesto

    Thank you for this. It’s exactly what I needed to read.