A sneak peak at power mapping, 2073’s top innovation

“What if every piece of journalism helped the public understand whether old or new power dynamics and values were at play?”

Last year for Nieman Lab’s 2020 predictions, I received and published an auspicious article from the future — from the year 2073, to be exact.

After revealing that missive, I heard from many journalists and newsroom folk of today that the journalists in the future seem to have discovered inspired answers to many of the gnarly questions we’re grappling with now. They longed to live in that future reality. And the most exciting aspect for many was the idea of “power mapping.”

To summarize, here’s what the missive from the future says is going to happen: Some feminist cartographers (most of whom have yet to be born, not all of whom will identify as women) will generate a new visual language to help people quickly understand how power flows in any given system. They will develop an intuitive iconography that can be universally understood and applied, and which doesn’t require written or verbal language skills for the viewer to understand what’s happening and what power dynamics are at play.

Storytellers of all kinds in 2073, especially journalists, see this power lexicon as an indispensable and productive method to increase people’s interest in “the news” and to participate in shaping society. Why? Because it’s only when people understand the power dynamics of any given situation that they can shape how that situation resolves or evolves. Knowledge is power; maps are a knowledge format.

Over the course of this past year, I’ve been trying in a variety of mystical and mundane fashions to tap into and download more details about how this whole field of power fluency/power literacy comes to take shape.

The good news: I have some updates!

But to make it happen, newsrooms must start now to make power part of every storyline, to set the foundation for these cartographers to begin developing this language. I’m sorry to add that responsibility to all of your overflowing plates.

What I’ve been tasked to do is provide a few starting points for inspiration for you, dear reader, to begin experimenting with making power the central character and the animating force of your reporting. I hope this helps. <deep breath>

The three rules of power

Eric Liu is a Taiwanese-American civic innovator, who started and runs an organization called Citizen University. He wrote a book in 2018 entitled You’re More Powerful Than You Think: A Citizen’s Guide to Making Change Happen. I have read and reread it, and bookmarked the page that outlines the three rules of power. Now that I know them, I see them at play everywhere.

  1. “Power concentrates. That is, it feeds on itself and compounds (as does powerlessness).”
  2. “Power justifies itself. People invent stories to legitimize the power they have (or lack).”
  3. “Power is infinite. There is no inherent limit on the amount of power people can create.”

My challenge to you is to consider the following: What would it take for these rules to become common knowledge? How might stories in the news call out which laws of power are at play?

With a solutions lens to reporting, how might journalists also share knowledge of where the leverage points are in the system? (This would no doubt help the public see what’s happening underneath the plotline of names and details, and give them a shorthand for doing their job as citizens in a democracy.)

What if every news story, no matter the form, helped people understand the foundational and systemic structures that are keeping things as is, creating conflict, or enabling new power to flow and, therefore, create new realities?

If journalism’s theory of change is that, by providing updates on “what’s happening,” people are enabled to form opinions and take action — wouldn’t revealing the storylines of power supercharge that ability?

How might newsrooms report equally on the power that already exists, to the infinite new power that’s being created? (E.g., who is starting to gather people, ideas and energy to do something differently?)

Old power and new power

The book New Power: How Power Works In Our Interconnected World and How to Make it Work For You, by Jeremy Heimans and Henry Timms, is dedicated to unpacking how old/traditional forms of power differ from the types of new power made possible by this digitally connected world. The following two charts in the book show some of the key differences:

Old power values:

  • Formal, governance, managerialism, institutionalism
  • Competition, exclusivity, resource consolidation
  • Confidentiality, discretion, separation between private and public spheres
  • Expertise, professionalism, specialization
  • Long-term affiliation and loyalty, less overall participation

New power values:

  • Informal (networked) governance, opt-in decision-making, self-organization
  • Collaboration, crowd wisdom, sharing, open-sourcing
  • Radical transparency
  • Maker culture, “do-it ourselves” ethic
  • Short-term conditional affiliation, more overall participation

Old power: Currency. New power: Current.
Old power: Held by few. New power: Made by many.
Old power: Download. New power: Upload.
Old power: Leader-driven. New power: Peer-driven.
Old power: Closed. New power: Open.

My challenge to you is to consider the following: What if every piece of journalism helped the public understand whether old or new power dynamics and values were at play? How might using this framing help generations better understand one another and why some approaches just will not work anymore?

What if reporters made explicit the values systems that are driving the sources in their stories to make the decisions they do? What might happen if newsrooms examined their own values, and whether they aligned more with old power or new power?

Hard and soft power

You may be familiar with the idea of “hard” and “soft” power. Soft power is the ability to use influence and attraction — rather than force, threat, or rules (hard power) — to make change happen.

You’ve definitely seen it at play in your life and work. That colleague of yours who doesn’t have a leadership title, but somehow manages to get their ideas heard and acted upon? They’re masters of soft power. That boss who gives orders and uses threats as their main way of making things happen? They use hard power as their instrument.

My challenge to you is to consider the following: What could it look like if every news story explained the soft and hard powers at play?

How would our journalistic narratives around gender change if we paid more attention to soft power, and the advantages it has in uniting and bringing people along with change? (Note: Many people who do not identify as women excel at soft power, so don’t reduce hard and soft power to the sex or gender identity of a person.)

How useful would it have been to understand the 2020 election through the lens of soft and hard power? At one point or another, we all wondered: Is he actually allowed to do that? Having an explanation of hard power would have helped people make sense of, and perhaps ease some anxieties about the many ways things could unfold.

So what will power maps look like?

In short, there will be a plethora of formats. The maps may show up as a sidebar in a story that names the players and gives bullet points on the types and qualities of the power at play. There will be “layers” you can turn on in a story to see the chronological poetry of power-shifting playing out over some period of time.

There will arise a handful of common patterns — shapes of power — that are used to give a shorthand visual for the dynamics at play. And, of course, there will be videos that accompany stories that give people the simplified overview of where power is being exerted, where it’s stuck, and what the outcomes are.

That’s all I know for now — and I’m excited to see what you visual thinkers come up with.

A warning about power maps and people

Humans are, of course, storytelling animals. When see a pattern, we unconsciously lock into it and then jump to conclusions in an effort to minimize confusion and maximize sense. This proclivity is a nuance-killer, a compassion-stripper, a destroyer of the ability to hold two competing narratives in one’s head simultaneously and recognize when a false dichotomy is at play.

In short: Power maps can also be dangerous.

What do I mean? Take a brief 1:32 to watch this video produced by two researchers, Heider and Simmel, in the 1940s.

What did you see? Was this a story of abuse? Was this a love triangle narrative? Or some kind of alien invasion? Reasonable people can and will disagree. They will locate a pattern and depending on their life experience, and skip straight to one of a handful of conclusions. (Credit here to the brilliant scholar and writer Jonathan Gottschall for giving this talk that inspired these realizations.)

Okay — so then what? We need to be sure we make power maps editable and iterative. Power, like the stuff that flows through our home’s electric circuits, is not static. These visualizations and explanations must be positioned as a snapshot in time and not a marker of the current reality. They should come with an expiration date and be able to be updated over time when dynamics shift.

And just as we fact-check stories (or at least one hopes we do), and just as we give people an opportunity to share their side of the story (or at least one hopes we do), reporters and fact-checkers are going to need to share their power maps with the folks they involve to be sure there’s a common reality to work from. And if there’s not, they’ll need to be prepared for people to create multiple versions and multiple POVs of any given map.

As I said in last year’s prediction, power maps will take time to develop. Which means there’s a lot of cultural cleanup to do between now and then in order to re-establish some semblance of a shared set of facts and a shared reality. And starting to shine a light on power, I’m told, will be a critically important part of enabling that change and healing.

Jennifer Brandel is co-founder and senior vice president of global partnerships at Hearken.

Last year for Nieman Lab’s 2020 predictions, I received and published an auspicious article from the future — from the year 2073, to be exact.

After revealing that missive, I heard from many journalists and newsroom folk of today that the journalists in the future seem to have discovered inspired answers to many of the gnarly questions we’re grappling with now. They longed to live in that future reality. And the most exciting aspect for many was the idea of “power mapping.”

To summarize, here’s what the missive from the future says is going to happen: Some feminist cartographers (most of whom have yet to be born, not all of whom will identify as women) will generate a new visual language to help people quickly understand how power flows in any given system. They will develop an intuitive iconography that can be universally understood and applied, and which doesn’t require written or verbal language skills for the viewer to understand what’s happening and what power dynamics are at play.

Storytellers of all kinds in 2073, especially journalists, see this power lexicon as an indispensable and productive method to increase people’s interest in “the news” and to participate in shaping society. Why? Because it’s only when people understand the power dynamics of any given situation that they can shape how that situation resolves or evolves. Knowledge is power; maps are a knowledge format.

Over the course of this past year, I’ve been trying in a variety of mystical and mundane fashions to tap into and download more details about how this whole field of power fluency/power literacy comes to take shape.

The good news: I have some updates!

But to make it happen, newsrooms must start now to make power part of every storyline, to set the foundation for these cartographers to begin developing this language. I’m sorry to add that responsibility to all of your overflowing plates.

What I’ve been tasked to do is provide a few starting points for inspiration for you, dear reader, to begin experimenting with making power the central character and the animating force of your reporting. I hope this helps. <deep breath>

The three rules of power

Eric Liu is a Taiwanese-American civic innovator, who started and runs an organization called Citizen University. He wrote a book in 2018 entitled You’re More Powerful Than You Think: A Citizen’s Guide to Making Change Happen. I have read and reread it, and bookmarked the page that outlines the three rules of power. Now that I know them, I see them at play everywhere.

  1. “Power concentrates. That is, it feeds on itself and compounds (as does powerlessness).”
  2. “Power justifies itself. People invent stories to legitimize the power they have (or lack).”
  3. “Power is infinite. There is no inherent limit on the amount of power people can create.”

My challenge to you is to consider the following: What would it take for these rules to become common knowledge? How might stories in the news call out which laws of power are at play?

With a solutions lens to reporting, how might journalists also share knowledge of where the leverage points are in the system? (This would no doubt help the public see what’s happening underneath the plotline of names and details, and give them a shorthand for doing their job as citizens in a democracy.)

What if every news story, no matter the form, helped people understand the foundational and systemic structures that are keeping things as is, creating conflict, or enabling new power to flow and, therefore, create new realities?

If journalism’s theory of change is that, by providing updates on “what’s happening,” people are enabled to form opinions and take action — wouldn’t revealing the storylines of power supercharge that ability?

How might newsrooms report equally on the power that already exists, to the infinite new power that’s being created? (E.g., who is starting to gather people, ideas and energy to do something differently?)

Old power and new power

The book New Power: How Power Works In Our Interconnected World and How to Make it Work For You, by Jeremy Heimans and Henry Timms, is dedicated to unpacking how old/traditional forms of power differ from the types of new power made possible by this digitally connected world. The following two charts in the book show some of the key differences:

Old power values:

  • Formal, governance, managerialism, institutionalism
  • Competition, exclusivity, resource consolidation
  • Confidentiality, discretion, separation between private and public spheres
  • Expertise, professionalism, specialization
  • Long-term affiliation and loyalty, less overall participation

New power values:

  • Informal (networked) governance, opt-in decision-making, self-organization
  • Collaboration, crowd wisdom, sharing, open-sourcing
  • Radical transparency
  • Maker culture, “do-it ourselves” ethic
  • Short-term conditional affiliation, more overall participation

Old power: Currency. New power: Current.
Old power: Held by few. New power: Made by many.
Old power: Download. New power: Upload.
Old power: Leader-driven. New power: Peer-driven.
Old power: Closed. New power: Open.

My challenge to you is to consider the following: What if every piece of journalism helped the public understand whether old or new power dynamics and values were at play? How might using this framing help generations better understand one another and why some approaches just will not work anymore?

What if reporters made explicit the values systems that are driving the sources in their stories to make the decisions they do? What might happen if newsrooms examined their own values, and whether they aligned more with old power or new power?

Hard and soft power

You may be familiar with the idea of “hard” and “soft” power. Soft power is the ability to use influence and attraction — rather than force, threat, or rules (hard power) — to make change happen.

You’ve definitely seen it at play in your life and work. That colleague of yours who doesn’t have a leadership title, but somehow manages to get their ideas heard and acted upon? They’re masters of soft power. That boss who gives orders and uses threats as their main way of making things happen? They use hard power as their instrument.

My challenge to you is to consider the following: What could it look like if every news story explained the soft and hard powers at play?

How would our journalistic narratives around gender change if we paid more attention to soft power, and the advantages it has in uniting and bringing people along with change? (Note: Many people who do not identify as women excel at soft power, so don’t reduce hard and soft power to the sex or gender identity of a person.)

How useful would it have been to understand the 2020 election through the lens of soft and hard power? At one point or another, we all wondered: Is he actually allowed to do that? Having an explanation of hard power would have helped people make sense of, and perhaps ease some anxieties about the many ways things could unfold.

So what will power maps look like?

In short, there will be a plethora of formats. The maps may show up as a sidebar in a story that names the players and gives bullet points on the types and qualities of the power at play. There will be “layers” you can turn on in a story to see the chronological poetry of power-shifting playing out over some period of time.

There will arise a handful of common patterns — shapes of power — that are used to give a shorthand visual for the dynamics at play. And, of course, there will be videos that accompany stories that give people the simplified overview of where power is being exerted, where it’s stuck, and what the outcomes are.

That’s all I know for now — and I’m excited to see what you visual thinkers come up with.

A warning about power maps and people

Humans are, of course, storytelling animals. When see a pattern, we unconsciously lock into it and then jump to conclusions in an effort to minimize confusion and maximize sense. This proclivity is a nuance-killer, a compassion-stripper, a destroyer of the ability to hold two competing narratives in one’s head simultaneously and recognize when a false dichotomy is at play.

In short: Power maps can also be dangerous.

What do I mean? Take a brief 1:32 to watch this video produced by two researchers, Heider and Simmel, in the 1940s.

What did you see? Was this a story of abuse? Was this a love triangle narrative? Or some kind of alien invasion? Reasonable people can and will disagree. They will locate a pattern and depending on their life experience, and skip straight to one of a handful of conclusions. (Credit here to the brilliant scholar and writer Jonathan Gottschall for giving this talk that inspired these realizations.)

Okay — so then what? We need to be sure we make power maps editable and iterative. Power, like the stuff that flows through our home’s electric circuits, is not static. These visualizations and explanations must be positioned as a snapshot in time and not a marker of the current reality. They should come with an expiration date and be able to be updated over time when dynamics shift.

And just as we fact-check stories (or at least one hopes we do), and just as we give people an opportunity to share their side of the story (or at least one hopes we do), reporters and fact-checkers are going to need to share their power maps with the folks they involve to be sure there’s a common reality to work from. And if there’s not, they’ll need to be prepared for people to create multiple versions and multiple POVs of any given map.

As I said in last year’s prediction, power maps will take time to develop. Which means there’s a lot of cultural cleanup to do between now and then in order to re-establish some semblance of a shared set of facts and a shared reality. And starting to shine a light on power, I’m told, will be a critically important part of enabling that change and healing.

Jennifer Brandel is co-founder and senior vice president of global partnerships at Hearken.

Masuma Ahuja   We’ll remember how interconnected our world is

Tshepo Tshabalala   Go niche

Laura E. Davis   The focus turns to newsroom leaders for lasting change

John Ketchum   More journalists of color become newsroom founders

Sarah Marshall   The year audiences need extra cheer

Julia Angwin   Show your (computational) work

Loretta Chao   Open up the profession

Gabe Schneider   Another year of empty promises on diversity

Mark Stenberg   The rise of the journalist-influencer

Gonzalo del Peon   Collaborations expand from newsrooms to the business side

Eric Nuzum   Podcasting dodged a bullet in 2020, but 2021 will be harder

Jean Friedman-Rudovsky and Cassie Haynes   A shift from conversation to action

Tim Carmody   Spotify will make big waves in video

Patrick Butler   Covid-19 reporting has prepared us for cross-border collaboration

Jacqué Palmer   The rise of the plain-text email newsletter

Ryan Kellett   The bundle gets bundled

Matt DeRienzo   Citizen truth brigades steer us back toward reality

Burt Herman   Journalists build post-Facebook digital communities

Ray Soto   The news gets spatial

Cory Haik   Be essential

Francesca Tripodi   Don’t expect breaking up Google and Facebook to solve our information woes

Garance Franke-Ruta   Rebundling content, rebuilding connections

M. Scott Havens   Traditional pay TV will embrace the disruption

Rachel Schallom   The rise of nonprofit journalism continues

Megan McCarthy   Readers embrace a low-information diet

Hossein Derakhshan   Mass personalization of truth

Rodney Gibbs   Zooming beyond talking heads

Jennifer Brandel   A sneak peak at power mapping, 2073’s top innovation

Catalina Albeanu   Publish less, listen more

Sam Ford   We’ll find better ways to archive our work

Andrew Ramsammy   Stop being polite and start getting real

Amara Aguilar   Journalism schools emphasize listening

Aaron Foley   Diversity gains haven’t shown up in local news

Julia B. Chan and Kim Bui   Millennials are ready to run things

Cory Bergman   The year after a thousand earthquakes

Jessica Clark   News becomes plural

Pia Frey   Building growth through tastemakers and their communities

Jeremy Gilbert   Human-centered journalism

Cindy Royal   J-school grads maintain their optimism and adaptability

Nico Gendron   Ask your readers to help build your products

Jennifer Choi   What have we done for you lately?

Don Day   Business first, journalism second

Nabiha Syed   Newsrooms quit their toxic relationships

Sue Cross   A global consensus around the kind of news we need to save

José Zamora   Walking the talk on diversity

Sara M. Watson   Return of the RSS reader

Victor Pickard   The commercial era for local journalism is over

Talmon Joseph Smith   The media rejects deficit hawkery

Kristen Muller   Engaged journalism scales

Andrew Donohue   The rise of the democracy beat

Mike Ananny   Toward better tech journalism

Alyssa Zeisler   Holistic medicine for journalism

Richard J. Tofel   Less on politics, more on how government works (or doesn’t)

Stefanie Murray and Anthony Advincula   Expect to see more translations and non-English content

Jer Thorp   Fewer pixels, more cardboard

Tamar Charney   Public radio has a midlife crisis

Celeste Headlee   The rise of radical newsroom transparency

Rishad Patel   From direct-to-consumer to direct-to-believers

David Skok   A pandemic-prompted wave of consolidation

Nikki Usher   Don’t expect an antitrust dividend for the media

Tonya Mosley   True equity means ownership

Janet Haven and Sam Hinds   Is this an AI newsroom?

Michael W. Wagner   Fractured democracy, fractured journalism

Zizi Papacharissi   The year we rebuild the infrastructure of truth

Delia Cai   Subscriptions start working for the middle

Whitney Phillips   Facts are an insufficient response to falsehoods

james Wahutu   Journalists still wrongly think the U.S. is different

Edward Roussel   Tech companies get aggressive in local

Joni Deutsch   Local arts and music make journalism more joyous

Samantha Ragland   The year of journalists taking initiative

C.W. Anderson   Journalism changed under Trump — will it keep changing under Biden?

Rasmus Kleis Nielsen   Stop pretending publishers are a united front

Astead W. Herndon   The Trump-sized window of the media caring about race closes again

Jesse Holcomb   Genre erosion in nonprofit journalism

Sarah Stonbely   Videoconferencing brings more geographic diversity

Pablo Boczkowski   Audiences have revolted. Will newsrooms adapt?

Matt Skibinski   Misinformation won’t stop unless we stop it

Robert Hernandez   Data and shame

Nonny de la Pena   News reaches the third dimension

Juleyka Lantigua-Williams   The download, podcasting’s metric king, gets dethroned

Nisha Chittal   The year we stop pivoting

David Chavern   Local video finally gets momentum

Marissa Evans   Putting community trauma into context

John Saroff   Covid sparks the growth of independent local news sites

Meredith D. Clark   The year journalism starts paying reparations

Bill Adair   The future of fact-checking is all about structured data

Kerri Hoffman   Protecting podcasting’s open ecosystem

Danielle C. Belton   A decimated media rededicates itself to truth

Marcus Mabry   News orgs adapt to a post-Trump world (with Trump still in it)

Alicia Bell and Simon Galperin   Media reparations now

Chase Davis   The year we look beyond The Story

Marie Shanahan   Journalism schools stop perpetuating the status quo

Ashton Lattimore   Remote work helps level the playing field in an insular industry

An Xiao Mina   2020 isn’t a black swan — it’s a yellow canary

Ariel Zirulnick   Local newsrooms question their paywalls

Ståle Grut   Network analysis enters the journalism toolbox

Brandy Zadrozny   Misinformation fatigue sets in

John Davidow   Reflect and repent

Joanne McNeil   Newsrooms push back against Ivy League cronyism

Ben Collins   We need to learn how to talk to (and about) accidental conspiracists

Christoph Mergerson   Black Americans will demand more from journalism

Francesco Zaffarano   The year we ask the audience what it needs

Raney Aronson-Rath   To get past information divides, we need to understand them first

Brian Moritz   The year sports journalism changes for good

Anna Nirmala   Local news orgs grasp the urgency of community roots

Kawandeep Virdee   Goodbye, doomscroll

Kate Myers   My son will join every Zoom call in our industry

Basile Simon   Graphics, unite

Linda Solomon Wood   Canada steps up for journalism

Ben Werdmuller   The web blooms again

Colleen Shalby   The definition of good journalism shifts

Hadjar Benmiloud   Get representative, or die trying

L. Gordon Crovitz   Common law will finally apply to the Internet

Beena Raghavendran   Journalism gets fused with art

Sumi Aggarwal   News literacy programs aren’t child’s play

María Sánchez Díez   Traffic will plummet — and it’ll be ok

Imaeyen Ibanga   Journalism gets unmasked

Taylor Lorenz   Journalists will learn influencing isn’t easy

Candis Callison   Calling it a crisis isn’t enough (if it ever was)

Bo Hee Kim   Newsrooms create an intentional and collaborative culture

Cherian George   Enter the lamb warriors

Errin Haines   Let’s normalize women’s leadership

Tauhid Chappell and Mike Rispoli   Defund the crime beat

Renée Kaplan   Falling in love with your subscription

Moreno Cruz Osório   In Brazil, a push for pluralism

Rick Berke   Virtual events are here to stay

Shaydanay Urbani and Nancy Watzman   Local collaboration is key to slowing misinformation

Anthony Nadler   Journalism struggles to find a new model of legitimacy

Sonali Prasad   Making disaster journalism that cuts through the noise

A.J. Bauer   The year of MAGAcal thinking

Nicholas Jackson   Blogging is back, but better

Steve Henn   Has independent podcasting peaked?

Jody Brannon   People won’t renew

Rachel Glickhouse   Journalists will be kinder to each other — and to themselves

Tanya Cordrey   Declining trust forces publishers to claim (or disclaim) values

Annie Rudd   Newsrooms grow less comfortable with the “view from above”

Kevin D. Grant   Parachute journalism goes away for good

Benjamin Toff   Beltway reporting gets normal again, for better and for worse

Charo Henríquez   A new path to leadership

Jim Friedlich   A newspaper renaissance reached by stopping the presses

Jonas Kaiser   Toward a wehrhafte journalism

Mariano Blejman   It’s time to challenge autocompleted journalism

John Garrett   A surprisingly good year

Mike Caulfield   2021’s misinformation will look a lot like 2020’s (and 2019’s, and…)

Logan Jaffe   History as a reporting tool

Natalie Meade   Journalism enters rehab

Alfred Hermida and Oscar Westlund   The virus ups data journalism’s game

Joshua Darr   Legislatures will tackle the local news crisis

Mandy Jenkins   You build trust by helping your readers

Chicas Poderosas   More voices mean better information

Parker Molloy   The press will risk elevating a Shadow President Trump

Ariane Bernard   Going solo is still only a path for the few

Mark S. Luckie   Newsrooms and streaming services get cozy

Heidi Tworek   A year of news mocktails

Zainab Khan   From understanding to feeling

Doris Truong   Indigenous issues get long-overdue mainstream coverage

Ernie Smith   Entrepreneurship on rails