Kathlyn Clore

Is the threat of climate change what legacy media brands needed to finally implement innovative new media strategies?

Starting with a syndicated editorial that ran in 56 newspapers, the international press have demonstrated far more collaborative spirit in coverage of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen than the politicians who have been sent to Denmark to take action.

The editorial, penned at The Guardian, notes:

“If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too.”

In addition to 16 newspapers from Asia, 20 European countries ran the editorial. The 1,113 words - in English - of the editorial were translated into 20 languages.

Indeed, COP15 has been a boon for syndication, distributed coverage, interactivity and aggregation.

On Facebook, a group called The Climate Pool has become a second home for the content of 11 different news publishers, including: Agence France-Press, ANP (the Netherlands), APCom (Italy), RIA (Russia), dpa (Germany), Lusa (Portugal) and The Associated Press (United States).

The group accumulated more than 5,000 fans as of the start of COP15. Participating agencies have posted articles relating to Copenhagen coverage, opening these up for comments. The group also includes discussion forums, on which - impressively - journalists from The Climate Pool have engaged with other Facebook users.

According to its own press release, The Climate Pool was initiated by a global media network called MINDS International. Based in Germany, MINDS began its life as European Commission-funded project in 2004; it now operates with funding from its members.

The group represents a departure from the isolated positions of news agencies like the AP, which distribute content to paying members but act as vertical silos online, unwilling to share content. An executive from the AP told Journalism.co.uk that participating in The Climate Pool is an experimental project “to help the agency better understand what tools are best used for covering certain events and answer questions about social media newsgathering and distribution.”

For netizens who want to comment on COP15 proceedings as they happen, enter the OneClimate Channel.

Thanks to the free video-sharing platform Justin.TV, the is running an interactive livestream of the meetings in Denmark. Viewers are able to watch live meetings, in English, while discussing with other viewers in real time alongside the video.

Live broadcasts are available on the COP15 site itself, but the UN site does not offer viewers a chance to comment.

In between official briefings, interviewers from the OneClimate initiative host discussions on various climate change themes with other activists. These too are open for real-time reader comments.

The Channel, which is live during business hours, can be embedded across the Internet.

“OneClimate.net has always been in the business of producing free digital spaces and tools for amplifying the voices of thousands of climate action groups around the world,” a press release from the initiative said. “Its new interactive TV channel is based on the same philosophy.”

OneClimate is part a UK nonprofit called OneWorld Network, which began in 1995 and is now a distributed network of activist sites.

Finally, thematic blogging platforms like the EJC’s ThinkAboutIt campaign and Global Voices Online have been active for months.

Both offer netizens a portal to blogs of citizens from all over the world; they’re reliable sources for authentic voices speaking from countries like Brazil, India, the US and the EU27.

The question is: Will the politicians at Copenhagen listen?

New media strategies like syndication, distribution, aggregation, social networking, curated lists, real-time discussion and search do provide entry points for more voices. But is it all one big echo chamber?

Communications staff in charge of compiling media briefings for their respective politicians each day of the COP15 have no excuse not to have their hands full of material.

Two stories surfaced in the national American press this weekend that appeared to call into question the concept of free speech.

The first and more lively issue, speech on social networking platforms, reveals itself to involve a question of ethics and protocol rather than free speech. But the second issue, limits on corporations’ ability to campaign for specific politicians around election times, does seem to involve issues of free speech.

First, the issue of free speech on social media platforms. In an article I read in Sunday’s New York Times, the right of members of the U.S. court system to speak about their work on social networking platforms was questioned.

Citing an incident in Florida in which a lawyer blogged about a judge who he and his colleagues believed to be improperly delaying cases, The New York Times article acknowledges that when individuals become a member of the court system, they willingly give up the right to brashly criticize the court in public.

Still, it’s seems to me that the Florida lawyer who posted nasty comments about a judge for whom he didn’t think blogging about the issue was really out of line.

To broaden the issue, the article continues:

Stephen Gillers, an expert on legal ethics at New York University Law School, sees many more missteps in the future, as young people who grew up with Facebook and other social media enter a profession governed by centuries of legal tradition.

“Twenty-somethings have a much-reduced sense of personal privacy,” Professor Gillers said. Younger lawyers are, predictably, more comfortable with the media than their older colleagues, according to a recent survey for LexisNexis, the legal database company: 86 percent of lawyers ages 25 to 35 are members of social networks like Facebook, LinkedIn and MySpace, as opposed to 66 percent of those over 46. For those just out of law school, “this stuff is like air to them,” said Michael Mintz, who manages an online community for lawyers, Martindale-Hubbell Connected. ”

Indeed - as my generation continues to develop professionally, what will the speech standards be on social media site?

To be sure, clamping down on social networking isn’t just an issue in the United States. Swiss bureaucrats have been asked to limit their social networking activities.

I do think that certain professions should require more decorum in social networking sites than others. It’s not like anyone forces you to be a lawyer or civil servant (OK, maybe your mother.)

Conclusion: Not a free speech issue.

Second: Limits on the ability of corporations and unions to campaign during election season.

For background, it’s best to just read this Wall Street Journal story.

The Supreme Court must decide if current limits on corporations - which are, it seems, under constitutional law treated like a person - and unions violate their free speech.

I very much like new justice Sandra Sotomayor’s take on this: Questioning if corporations should indeed be treated like a person. I am surprised that they are, actually, and don’t think they should be.

But I also think the quote in the article from justice Anthony Kennedy gets at the heart of the matter: “…that limiting corporate spending on campaign ads deprived voters of the expertise business brings to many subjects. ‘Corporations have lots of knowledge about environment, transportation issues, and you are silencing them during the election,’ he told Ms. Kagan [who was arguing in front of the court].”

Conclusion: As much as I think this is ridiculous in practice, as a free speech advocate I think that until corporations and unions are no longer granted the status of individuals, they should be able to campaign as vigorously as they want for candidates in their constituencies.

The Internet tour guides whose job it is to notice and point out just exactly how the ‘Net has taken over our lives really like the term “Statusphere.”

Now TechCrunch wants to know if this new -sphere can save journalism. The answer is a resounding No.

Don’t get me wrong, I like this term a lot. Reading the words of online sociologists who sit around and make up these words reminds me of the first time I heard David Weinberger speak about his book Everything is Miscellaneous. I felt like Homer Simpson, smacking myself on the forehead going “Doh! It’s so obvious… Why didn’t I write this down first and get to travel around to cool conferences talking about this!”

But there is a big problem with the Statusphere: It is merely a kind of echo chamber.

TechCrunch writer Brian Solis points out, “It is the Social Effect that determines actual reach, resonance and the course for individual content.”

This is true, but has has a negative and positive effect. And the negative effect is, in my opinion, more of a problem for the Average American Jane than for the Ramblin’ Renaissance Man.

Lately I have come to realize, for example, that some of the most useful “Friends” I have on Facebook - a product I have used since 2004 - are not the grade-school comrades with whom I’ve reconnected with. Sure, it is fun to see who has gotten married, who is having children, et cetera. I dig the gossip.

But the more interesting content I find via my Facebook network comes more and more from people I have met only a few times: Friends I made in a short time who then moved to another place, nice people I have met on airplanes, colleagues I have met at conferences. I don’t actually know these people particularly well, and that’s maybe why I delight in seeing what music, links and commentary they post. I find things that surprise me.

Example: An Italian girl I lived with for a few months posted this video as she was about to attend Cesária Évora’s concert:

I’ve never heard of Cesária Évora before, but I enjoyed this song so much that I used YouTube to seek out more of her work. So soulful…

So in this way, the Statusphere exposes me to content I enjoy but might not find otherwise. But I think that in the United States, my experiences are rather unique: In the last five years, I have lived on the East and West coasts as well as in Europe. I’ve traversed the Atlantic Ocean eight times. (And no, I’m not in the military.) Obviously, I’ve done this moving around because I think it’s a good idea to travel and be exposed to new ideas and new people.

So

when I consider, say, friends who have not traveled outside the United States, who are living in the same state in which they grew up and have never lived anywhere else, I wonder if the Statusphere is as useful. Plenty of Americans speak only English and spend their lives within only one or two states without ever applying for a passport. Can a vanilla network really bring someone a neapolitan Internet news/culture experience? I don’t know if I think this Internet so powerful that it can overcome the routine of life.

Which is why the Statusphere will not save journalism.

Enter the “Status-phere.”

More powerful than the political sphere, mediasphere and blogosphere combined!!

The Statusphere refers to Facebook and Twitter functionalities. Users can update their profile pages with short notes about what they’re thinking about or doing. Many users include links to journalistic content.

These links have tremendous weight. If you see a Facebook friend pointing to a story or video online, the likelihood that you’ll take a look is far greater than if you saw that link as one of many headlines on a newspaper website.

In old school speak, the statusphere is kind of like where you posts articles you once would have put on your refrigerator or bulletin board.

I think Statusphere is a tangible term whose meaning is quickly communicated. So it works. But yes, it is a bit cheesy and, you know, “made up.” And it does remind me of this snarky Gawker article: Trend-Seeking New York Times Was Adding ‘-ista’ To Words 130 Years Ago

Still.

Interview with Brian Storm - mediastorm.com from European Journalism Centre on Vimeo.

This is proof that railing against “the man” (even if he does have the face of a 12-year-old) can make a difference, at least online.

And that Internet users who use social networking are not free slave labor.

Indeed, massive web platforms should not be allowed to so lightly steal content.

Smart move, Facebook.