Who do you trust? Media in the era of participation MAC309 r [email_address]
<ul><li>“ Don’ t trust anyone over the age of 30 ” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Jack Weinberg </li></ul></ul>
T r ust and reputation <ul><li>2 frequently mentioned terms in Public Relations discourse </li></ul><ul><li>The value of c...
T r ust and reputation <ul><li>2 frequently mentioned terms in Public Relations discourse </li></ul><ul><li>The  value  of...
T r ust and reputation <ul><li>The  value  of corporate bodies  is  often tied up in the credibility of th ei r reputation...
Defining  ‘trust’
Defining  ‘trust’ <ul><li>‘ confidence in or reliance on a quality or attribute of a person or thing, or the truth of a st...
Historical thinkers <ul><li>Max Weber </li></ul><ul><li>Erving Goffman </li></ul>
Contemporary thinkers <ul><li>Anthony Giddens </li></ul><ul><li>Ulrich Beck </li></ul>
Modernity <ul><li>‘ the nature of modern institutions is deeply bound up with the mechanisms of trust in  abstract systems...
Modernity and modern societies <ul><li>Modernity  disembeds  social relationships from local contexts.  </li></ul><ul><li>...
Modernity and modern societies <ul><li>In premodern societies, you could  manage  personal  risks  by placing trust in peo...
Click to play
Modernity and modern societies <ul><li>In modern society we are regularly forced to entrust our personal and financial sec...
Abstract systems? <ul><li>Systems of specialist knowledge that regularly call on us to put our faith in the skills of face...
Abstract systems? <ul><li>Systems of specialist knowledge that regularly call on us to put our faith in the skills of face...
<ul><li>“ It is no wonder that people have come to  distrust  computer-based record-keeping operations. Even in non-govern...
Institutions <ul><li>Replaced our previous (local)  ‘trust’ relationships </li></ul>
‘ T r ust’ in modern societies Table adapted from Giddens, 1990, The  Consequences of Modernity , p102. Pre-modern General...
‘ Risk’ in modern societies Table adapted from Giddens, 1990, The  Consequences of Modernity , p102. Pre-modern General co...
T r ust in the media? <ul><li>2006: International poll by BBC; R e uters; US think tank The Media Centre </li></ul><ul><li...
The Quality and Independence of British Journalism? <ul><li>2008: Cardiff School of Journalism </li></ul><ul><li>Analysed ...
The Quality and Independence of British Journalism? <ul><li>Journalists are producing more copy (3 x more than 20 years ag...
Online is different? <ul><li>“ Why is credibility essential online and , more to the point, different than in the analog p...
Online is different? <ul><li>“ Why is credibility essential online and, more to the point, different than in the analog ph...
Media literacy & credibility assessment <ul><li>While children are exposed to online media at an increasingly early age, s...
Media literacy & credibility assessment <ul><li>“ people know they ‘should’ critically analyze the information they obtain...
Media literacy & credibility assessment
Wikipedia (case study)
Nupedia <ul><li>2000: Jimmy Wales & Larry Sanger founded Nupedia </li></ul><ul><ul><li>High quality online encyclopaedia <...
Nupedia <ul><li>Added  ‘wiki’ software to Nupedia site </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Invented by Ward Cunningham in 1995 </li></ul...
Wikipedia in figures <ul><li>2001: 15,000 articles </li></ul><ul><li>2009: 2.7 million+ articles </li></ul><ul><li>1 milli...
Why did it grow? <ul><li>“ Why do people play softball?  It’s fun, it’s a social activity … We are gathering together to b...
Criticisms <ul><li>Reliability? </li></ul>
Jimmy Wales
Jimmy Wales
Crowd wisdom? <ul><li>Surowiecki claims that the  ‘wisdom of the crowds’ comes about when large groups of people who do no...
Mumbai attacks <ul><li>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai_attacks   </li></ul><ul><li>See page history </li></ul>
First post
1 hour later …
9 hours later http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_Mumbai_attacks&dir=prev&offset=20081127021154&action=history
9 hours, 30 seconds later
Spontaneous division of labour <ul><li>See Shirky, 2008: p118 </li></ul><ul><li>Unmanaged and organic; self-policing </li>...
Tools to reinforce trust <ul><li>These tools provide more transparency to the edit process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>WikiScann...
The darkside of trust? <ul><li>‘ The more people trust, the easier they are for others to exploit’ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(...
Click to play
The trouble with Web 2.0 … <ul><li>‘ Sanger came to his sense about Wikipedia.  He recognised the appallingly destructive ...
Examples of collaboratively produced knowledge  <ul><li>Britannica </li></ul><ul><li>Nupedia </li></ul><ul><li>Wikipedia <...
Wikileaks
Questions <ul><li>Do we  ‘trust’ the media? How might we explain our relationship to it? On what basis do we or don’t we t...
Sources <ul><li>BBC, 2006,  ‘ Media holds its own in trust poll ’ ,  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4965550.stm  (t...
<ul><li>Rcade, 2009,  Newseum : Do You Trust Blogs? </li></ul><ul><li>EPI2oh, 2010,  Deepwater Horizon Fire </li></ul><ul>...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

MAC309 Trust in media

896 views

Published on

This session looked at the problematic ways in which trust in the media is an aspect of modernity and how that impacts on digital literacy

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
896
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
43
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
15
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

MAC309 Trust in media

  1. 1. Who do you trust? Media in the era of participation MAC309 r [email_address]
  2. 2. <ul><li>“ Don’ t trust anyone over the age of 30 ” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Jack Weinberg </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. T r ust and reputation <ul><li>2 frequently mentioned terms in Public Relations discourse </li></ul><ul><li>The value of corporate bodies is often tied up in the credibility of th ei r reputations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>i e. their trustworthiness </li></ul></ul><ul><li>See Michael G Cherenson ’ s (Public Relations Society of America) slides: </li></ul>
  4. 4. T r ust and reputation <ul><li>2 frequently mentioned terms in Public Relations discourse </li></ul><ul><li>The value of corporate bodies is often tied up in the credibility of th ei r reputations </li></ul>See Michael G Cherenson ’ s (Public Relations Society of America) slides
  5. 5. T r ust and reputation <ul><li>The value of corporate bodies is often tied up in the credibility of th ei r reputations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>i e. their trustworthiness </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>eg. BP ’ s Deeepwater oil spill </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Defining ‘trust’
  7. 7. Defining ‘trust’ <ul><li>‘ confidence in or reliance on a quality or attribute of a person or thing, or the truth of a statement’ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Oxford Dictionary </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Historical thinkers <ul><li>Max Weber </li></ul><ul><li>Erving Goffman </li></ul>
  9. 9. Contemporary thinkers <ul><li>Anthony Giddens </li></ul><ul><li>Ulrich Beck </li></ul>
  10. 10. Modernity <ul><li>‘ the nature of modern institutions is deeply bound up with the mechanisms of trust in abstract systems , especially trust in expert systems ’ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(Giddens, 1990: 83) </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. Modernity and modern societies <ul><li>Modernity disembeds social relationships from local contexts. </li></ul><ul><li>We come into contact with &quot; strangers &quot; on a more regular basis than inhabitants of premodern societies were. </li></ul><ul><li>The premodern means of determining whether a person is &quot; trustworthy &quot; are generally less helpful to modern people. </li></ul>
  12. 12. Modernity and modern societies <ul><li>In premodern societies, you could manage personal risks by placing trust in people whom you knew personally, through kinship networks (real or fictive) or the ties of local communities. </li></ul>
  13. 13. Click to play
  14. 14. Modernity and modern societies <ul><li>In modern society we are regularly forced to entrust our personal and financial security to people with whom we have fleeting, if any, face-to-face contact. </li></ul>
  15. 15. Abstract systems? <ul><li>Systems of specialist knowledge that regularly call on us to put our faith in the skills of faceless, absent others? </li></ul>
  16. 16. Abstract systems? <ul><li>Systems of specialist knowledge that regularly call on us to put our faith in the skills of faceless, absent others </li></ul><ul><ul><li>M oney and the banking system ( trust in the value of the pound?) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Road signs and traffic systems ( trust in the rules of the road, other drivers, the DVLA, etc for vehicular safety) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Building safety ( trust in laws of physics, architect, builders, etc) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Internet banking/shopping ( trust in software security of computer, stability of network, retailer, etc) </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. <ul><li>“ It is no wonder that people have come to distrust computer-based record-keeping operations. Even in non-governmental settings, an individual’s control over the personal information that he gives to an organization, or that an organization obtains about him, is lessening as the relationship between the giver and receiver of personal data grows more attenuated, impersonal, and diffused . There was a time when information about an individual tended to be elicited in face-to-face contacts involving personal trust and a certain symmetry , or balance, between giver and receiver. Nowadays an individual must increasingly give information about himself to large and relatively faceless institutions , for handling and use by strangers—unknown, unseen and, all too frequently, unresponsive. Sometimes the individual does not even know that an organization maintains a record about him. Often he may not see it, much less contest its accuracy, control its dissemination, or challenge its use by others.” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(Advisory Committee to the Secretary of Health, Education & Welfare, Records, Computers and the Rights of Citizens, at § II, 1973, available at http://aspe.hhs.gov/datacncl/1973privacy/tocprefacemembers.htm ) </li></ul></ul>
  18. 18. Institutions <ul><li>Replaced our previous (local) ‘trust’ relationships </li></ul>
  19. 19. ‘ T r ust’ in modern societies Table adapted from Giddens, 1990, The Consequences of Modernity , p102. Pre-modern General context: overriding importance of localised trust Modern General context: trust relations vested in disembedded abstract systems 1. K inship relations as an organising device for stabilising social ties 1. Personal relationships of friendship or sexual intimacy as means of stabilising social ties 2. The local community as a place , providing famil ia r environment 2. Abstract systems as a means of stabilising relations across indefinite spans of time-space 3. Religious cosmologies as modes of bel ie f and ritual interpreting nature and life 3. Future-orientated , counter-factual thought as a mode of connecting past and present 4. Tradition as a means of connecting present and future; past-orientated
  20. 20. ‘ Risk’ in modern societies Table adapted from Giddens, 1990, The Consequences of Modernity , p102. Pre-modern General context: overriding importance of localised trust Modern General context: trust relations vested in disembedded abstract systems 1. Threats and dangers emanating from nature , such as the prevalence of infectious diseases, climatic unreliability, floods, etc 1. Threats and dangers emanating from the reflexivity of modernity 2. The threat of human violence from marauding armies, local warlords, brigands, or robbers 2. The threat of human violence from the industrialisation of war 3. Risk of a fall from religious grace or of malicious magical influence 3. The threat of personal meaninglessness deriving from the reflexivity of modernity as applied to the self
  21. 21. T r ust in the media? <ul><li>2006: International poll by BBC; R e uters; US think tank The Media Centre </li></ul><ul><li>10,230 p eo ple from 10 counties </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4965550.stm </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
  24. 24.
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
  27. 27. The Quality and Independence of British Journalism? <ul><li>2008: Cardiff School of Journalism </li></ul><ul><li>Analysed the quantity of public relations material and news agency copy within news output </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.mediastandardstrust.org/resources/mediaresearch.aspx </li></ul>
  28. 28. The Quality and Independence of British Journalism? <ul><li>Journalists are producing more copy (3 x more than 20 years ago) </li></ul><ul><li>Majority is based on news agency copy or public relations material (60% of press and 34% of broadcast stories) </li></ul><ul><li>The most PR influenced topic was health, followed by consumer/business news and entertainment/sport' </li></ul>See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn8trMXe8ok
  29. 29. Online is different? <ul><li>“ Why is credibility essential online and , more to the point, different than in the analog physical world?” </li></ul>
  30. 30. Online is different? <ul><li>“ Why is credibility essential online and, more to the point, different than in the analog physical world?” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Information is disconnected from any physical origin </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interactions are mediated by software </li></ul></ul>
  31. 31. Media literacy & credibility assessment <ul><li>While children are exposed to online media at an increasingly early age, studies show that many adolescents do not possess the expertise required to search the Web efficiently or critically assess the credibility of what they find </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Hargittai et al, 2010 </li></ul></ul>
  32. 32. Media literacy & credibility assessment <ul><li>“ people know they ‘should’ critically analyze the information they obtain online, yet rarely have the time or energy to do it” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Metzger, 2007, p. 2078 </li></ul></ul>
  33. 33. Media literacy & credibility assessment
  34. 34.
  35. 35. Wikipedia (case study)
  36. 36. Nupedia <ul><li>2000: Jimmy Wales & Larry Sanger founded Nupedia </li></ul><ul><ul><li>High quality online encyclopaedia </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>M anaged, written & reviewed by experts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Voluntary basis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>7 stage review process </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1 year in: $120000 spent; only 24 articles </li></ul></ul>
  37. 37. Nupedia <ul><li>Added ‘wiki’ software to Nupedia site </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Invented by Ward Cunningham in 1995 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Much faster to post and edit articles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Anyone could edit </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Nupedia advisory board rejected it </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wikipedia didn ’ t generate revenue </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sanger was laid off in 2001 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wikipedia transferred to nonprofit status </li></ul></ul>
  38. 38. Wikipedia in figures <ul><li>2001: 15,000 articles </li></ul><ul><li>2009: 2.7 million+ articles </li></ul><ul><li>1 million+ registered users </li></ul><ul><li>100,000 users posted 10+ articles </li></ul><ul><li>75,000 regular editors </li></ul><ul><li>5,000 hardcore maintain site </li></ul><ul><li>5 paid staffers </li></ul><ul><ul><li>See Tapscott & Williams, 2008: 72; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/About_Wikipedia </li></ul></ul>
  39. 39. Why did it grow? <ul><li>“ Why do people play softball? It’s fun, it’s a social activity … We are gathering together to build this resource that will be made available to all the people of the world for free. That’s a goal people can get behind.” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Jimmy Wales cited in Tapscott & Williams, 2008: 72 </li></ul></ul>
  40. 40.
  41. 41. Criticisms <ul><li>Reliability? </li></ul>
  42. 42. Jimmy Wales
  43. 43. Jimmy Wales
  44. 44. Crowd wisdom? <ul><li>Surowiecki claims that the ‘wisdom of the crowds’ comes about when large groups of people who do not have tight connections to each ot he r can pool their knowledge without having to come to an agreement. </li></ul><ul><li>This is what makes Wikipedia work … </li></ul>
  45. 45. Mumbai attacks <ul><li>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai_attacks </li></ul><ul><li>See page history </li></ul>
  46. 46. First post
  47. 47. 1 hour later …
  48. 48. 9 hours later http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_Mumbai_attacks&dir=prev&offset=20081127021154&action=history
  49. 49. 9 hours, 30 seconds later
  50. 50. Spontaneous division of labour <ul><li>See Shirky, 2008: p118 </li></ul><ul><li>Unmanaged and organic; self-policing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Article is created </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Attracts readers (who are also potential contributors) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>S ome add text; some fix layout; some add references; etc </li></ul></ul><ul><li>‘ None of these people needs to know everything … Every edit is provisional … Bad changes can be rooted out faster … Human knowledge is provisional ’ </li></ul>
  51. 51. Tools to reinforce trust <ul><li>These tools provide more transparency to the edit process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>WikiScanner http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wiki Dahsboard http://wikidashboard.parc.com/ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wikirage http://www.wikirage.com/ </li></ul></ul><ul><li>These tools make more accurate and useful </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Powerset http://www.powerset.com/ </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wikirank http://wikirank.com/en </li></ul></ul>
  52. 52. The darkside of trust? <ul><li>‘ The more people trust, the easier they are for others to exploit’ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>(James Surowiecki, 2004: 116) </li></ul></ul>
  53. 53. Click to play
  54. 54. The trouble with Web 2.0 … <ul><li>‘ Sanger came to his sense about Wikipedia. He recognised the appallingly destructive consequences of the Wikipedia experiment … [T]he democratization of information can quickly degenerate into an intellectually corrosive radical egalitarianism. The knowledge of the expert, in fact, does trump the collective “ wisdom ” of amateurs ’ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Keen, 2008: 186 </li></ul></ul>
  55. 55. Examples of collaboratively produced knowledge <ul><li>Britannica </li></ul><ul><li>Nupedia </li></ul><ul><li>Wikipedia </li></ul><ul><li>Citizendium </li></ul>
  56. 56. Wikileaks
  57. 57. Questions <ul><li>Do we ‘trust’ the media? How might we explain our relationship to it? On what basis do we or don’t we trust the media? </li></ul><ul><li>Should Wikipedia be trusted? Should we trust it more or less than established media sources? </li></ul><ul><li>How can Wikipedia work against its doubters to ma ke itself more ‘trustworthy’? </li></ul>
  58. 58. Sources <ul><li>BBC, 2006, ‘ Media holds its own in trust poll ’ , http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4965550.stm (the full report can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_05_06mediatrust.pdf ) </li></ul><ul><li>Andrew Keen, 2008, The Cult of the Amateur: How today ’s Internet is killing our culture and assaulting our economy , London: Nicholas Brearly Publishing </li></ul><ul><li>Tom Leonard, 2008, ‘Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales in online love spat’, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1580689/Wikipedias-Jimmy-Wales-in-online-love-spat.html </li></ul><ul><li>Clay Shirky, 2008: Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations , London: Allen Lane. </li></ul><ul><li>James Surowiecki, 2004, The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many are Smarter Than the Few , London: Abacus </li></ul><ul><li>Don Tapsoctt & Anthony D. Williams, 2008, Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything , London: Atlantic Books </li></ul>
  59. 59. <ul><li>Rcade, 2009, Newseum : Do You Trust Blogs? </li></ul><ul><li>EPI2oh, 2010, Deepwater Horizon Fire </li></ul><ul><li>vagawi , 2009, Trust </li></ul><ul><li>Nicolasnova, 2007, Modernity </li></ul><ul><li>SlipStreamJC, 2006, plane in cables </li></ul><ul><li>Robjewitt, 2011, I promise to pay the bearer </li></ul><ul><li>Sonicbloom, 2006, In Google We Trust </li></ul>

×