Kathlyn Clore

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.

The other night, after I poured some red wine out of a bottle whose cork had been pounded in rather than out, I made an incoherent remark about feminism.

As the bottle was passed around and shared in tiny plastic cups at an intimate gathering of about 100 random Europeans and an amateur DJ, my friend Ruth followed up with a perhaps more coherent remark.

She suggested that that the ongoing Internet revolution (the Web 2.0/ “make your own way with your own network” idea) is perhaps ‘for feminism’.

After all, she said, so many tools and concepts - RSS, social networking, tagging, hyperlinks, viral content - enable you to break free of mainstream thought. You can really experience news and content in whatever way you’d like. Nothing is dictated.

And, advancing the discussion in another direction, it also seems like the “freelance culture” that’s popping up because of all the layoffs in the MSM, is particularly good for women content producers (er, journalists… Such a 1.0 word, eh!). We can work online from anywhere, which enables all kind of offline adventures, be they travel or reproduction related.

I agree that Web 2.0 can be for feminism. Point, Ruth.

But am I a feminist? Do I want to rock some Web 2.0 feminista action? I don’t know. And in a world where even Wikipedia makes feminism seem confusing, how can I know?

I dig sports, for example. I dig women’s sports. I will even pay to watch women play sports. I’m psyched that there are more women in a lot of universities than men. I also think women should have equal pay for equal work (and often don’t get this). I think it’s good to have women CEOs and managers. I think it’s possible that Sonia Sotomayor will bring something extra to her job because she’s a woman and a Latina. And I think that’s wicked awesome. I sometimes hate that a women’s looks are so much more important than a man’s. I hate the fake dichotomy between “working” and “career” women and the idea that I should be one or the other (but would be of course the highest form of women if I attempted and was successful at both). And I think people who do developing work in third-world countries can get further by teaching a women to read than a man (she’ll teach her children (read: daughters) what she knows, a man would not be as likely to do so).

Do these things make me a feminist?? Who knows. But I do find a lot about these topics online - and I find myself sharing articles about these ideas with female friends. And I’m more exposed to these ideas because of my friends.

Because, I also think this stuff is complicated. Should women change their last names when they get married? Seems like a question for feminists. I think no — it represents a massive loss of identity.

And findabilty! Try and find a married women in the phonebook, for example. You’ll quickly realize it’s a hellofa lot easier to find her husband, especially if she has a common family name.

Also - As a 20something female who is a heavy Facebook user, I find myself more and more often confronted with status updates from women whose names with which I’m unfamiliar. Those old friends from high school are now called something else, which totally confuses me when I’m quickly looking around my Facebook network. I actually sort of increasingly despise these acquaintances for changing their names, for some reason. It’s like they abandon their old selves, or something.

I also hate that most of these women will create more confusion for me as they inevitably fumble around and end up changing how they list their last name. It’s just all too contrived.

But on the other hand, what happens to the children of women who don’t change their last names upon getting married? Does the child of Jane Smith and Doug Jones become Jennifer Smith-Jones? Maybe - but now Jennifer Smith-Jones is in a real bind if she wants to keep her hyphenated last name and have children with her future husband. Because if Jennifer Smith-Jones makes babies with Kameel Johnson, it would be somewhat absurd for the child to be Susan Smith-Jones-Johnson.

See? Not so clear cut.

I wonder if I have to know if I’m a feminist to use Web 2.0 to explore feminism…

As my current boss would say “This would be a great Ph.D topic”.

IF YOU’VE MADE IT THIS FAR: Enjoy!

I agree with the Columbia law professor who says “To love Google, you have to be a little bit of a monarchist.”

But I also agree with this comment Marissa Mayer made during this month’s U.S. Senate hearing on the future of journalism. I had not read Mayer’s testimony until editing this summary of her talk, written by an Italian entrepreneur for the EJC.

It’s one of those comments that helps you view today’s media landscape through a smart lens. Mayer does not suggest any actual steps news publishers should be taking, but she describes a useful way for them to think about the content they publish.

This comment and its use of “basic atomic unit of consumption” is one of those that leaves you smacking your forehead ala Homer Simpson and wondering why you didn’t say this yourself. So obvious… But like they say about contemporary artwork, “Yeah, but you didn’t do it…”

Mayer said:

“Changing the basic unit of content consumption is a challenge, but also an opportunity. Treating the article as the atomic unit of consumption online has several powerful consequences. When producing an article for online news, the publisher must assume that a reader may be viewing this article on its own, independent of the rest of the publication. To make an article effective in a standalone setting requires providing sufficient context for first-time readers, while clearly calling out the latest information for those following a story over time. It also requires a different approach to monetization: each individual article should be self-sustaining. These types of changes will require innovation and experimentation in how news is delivered online, and how advertising can support it.”