Rheingold Preaches Mob-Logging

drjparker writes "Howard Rheingold author of Smart Mobs and The Virtual Community among other works has an article in the Online Journalism Review in which he ponders the effects of video over cell phones and adding video to blogs on the future of journalism. The article is titled Moblogs Seen as a Crystal Ball for a New Era in Online Journalism."

The future is here

[stanmann]

Slashdot is the future of news. We are doomed to see tubgirl and goatse. Trolls will dominate the newscape. Although the moderators will save us.

democratization of the media?

[Scalli0n]

Somehow I don't see mob-blogging as the 'new media' nor "Putting video cameras and high-speed Net connections in telephones, moves blogging into the streets."

I think that the media will remain the same, if not more powerful due to the vast quantity of information being provided to people; would you rather siphon through 100 people's random news (crap important to them but not you) vs. getting the quick and dirty (www.cnn.com, news.google.com) ?

problem

[danitor]

the real problem here is that none of these "mobloggers" is going to have the money to be free to just report news all day. it is the job of "real" reporters to just find news, all day, seven days a week. if you're busy driving to work and earning a buck, you aren't free to only produce news. who has time to check sources/etc.? i'm sure other slashdotters will mention the fact that since there is no real moderation on individual blogs, getting decent news from these sites will also be a time consuming, tedious task. i look forward to seeing solutions to these problems.

Death of Journalism

[colmore]

So Journalism becomes aggregated rumor and mobthought? Thanks but no thanks.

While there are certainly problems with current Journalism (see New York Times, and the rush for all networks to become like Fox News in the wake of Iraq) I still like knowing where my news comes from and having some entity to hold responsible for the coverage.

Individual testimonials and stories have their place too, but the people on the street have their own axes to grind as much as the media does and do not as frequently distinguish between fact and rumor. (How many idiots on the internet will scream "Bush is a Coke-Head" or "Clinton had people murdered!" like it's gospel)

Journalism is in enough trouble with corporate consolidation and deregulation, but this is too much.

Mob-Logging?

[wo1verin3]

>> Rheingold Preaches Mob-Logging

Is he preacing Mob-Logging?
Or does he just want Mo-Blogging?

Naive

[locarecords.com]

Rheingold gives us more of his simplistic technological determinism and poorly researched and non-empirical ideas.

So what? A group of people read his work and then actually rush to be the first to wet their pants as he can name them as actually implementing his ideas!?! How lame is that?

Much more interesting would be a book that actually analysed how the media corporations will use this technology in embedding at a lower level than already shown in the Gulf War. This was perhaps the most potent demonstration of how technology allows us to see everything in real time, but as we are overwhelmed we don't critique, we don't listen and it becomes purely background entertainment.

For instance in the Gulf War lots was happening in Basra and on the Baghdad Rd, we knew that as there were so many Embeds. BUT what exactly were the US and Brits up to in Western Iraq and Northern Iraq where the Embeds were forbidden (or perhaps persuaded) not to go? We will never know as we were all so sick of footage from the 'media' bit of Iraq that we truly couldn't be bothered to find out...

That is the power of moblogs... Control through information overload... coming soon...

Journalism is all about trust

[DeusExLibris]

As I have stated here before [slashdot.org], to be considered "journalism", trust of the source is a required characteristic. Rheingold himself makes this point:

"Journalism, if it is to deserve the name, is not about the quality of the camera, but about the journalist's intuition, integrity, courage, inquisitiveness, analytic and expressive capabilities, and above all, the trust the journalist has earned among readers."

Whether we call it journalism or not, we all participate in communities of trusted information. We talk with our friends and family about politics, co-workers about innovations in technology, etc. Who we choose to believe or listen to within these groups is based upon how much we trust the other party. The so-called democratization of journalism is nothing more than the globalization of the chat around the water-cooler.

Improvements in technology will not improve the quality of the content (in fact, it will probably bias it towards the prurient and salacious), but it does increase the pool of potential reporters. While we will undoubtedly see the rise of individuals that draw a devoted gathering (ala Matt Drudge), the "traditional" media sources will continue to be important as reliable, trusted sources.

Re:Please

[lavaface]

What? You're right-O'Reilly has no relevance in the technical world. Insecure? Sounds like projection

Re:democratization of the media?

[kristoe]

For science fiction fans, an extreme version of this was predicted in the novel Mother of Storms (John Barnes, 1995, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0812 533453/qid=1057945184/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/103-897443 2-9869404?v=glance&s=books).

Basic gist: instead of mob bloggers with video cameras and cell phones, imagine thousands of people "broadcasting" the sensory experiences of being in a food riot, etc. in real-time to people around the globe. (also like a real-time version of the wire-tripping in the film Strange Days, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/flex-sign-in/ref =cm_rate_rev_pagepos4/103-8974432-9869404#rated-re view)

Re:Mobile Porn

[dki]

Yah, men generally find this funny until the camera zooms in on their girlfriend, wife, sister, daughter, or mother. Then they start to understand why stories like this creep us gals out.

Re:Even you can be a journalist

[timeOday]

Sure all these people will be bringing different perspectives to what's going on in the world, but along with it they may bring prejudices and narrow viewpoints along with it. These are things we try to avoid in accurate journalism. Not everyone is going to care about bringing every side of the story, they may just show their opinion (bias) in order to persuade others. This is already happening today and encouraging everyone, no matter if they lack experience, objectivity, proper reporting skills, to be a reporter may not be a good idea.

The key to democratization of news is not in having any fair, unbiased source - it is in allowing all sides to tell their story, and in weighing and judging the evidence for yourself.