Philip Gomes

Jeff Jarvis.

So imagine this future without pages and sites, this future that’s all built on process over product. If you’re what used to be a content-creation – if you’re Stephen Fry, post-media – you’re all about insinuating yourself into that stream. If you’re about content curation – formerly known as editing – then you’re all about prioritizing streams for people; that’s how you add value now.

Getting people to come to you so you can tell them what you say they should know while showing them ads they didn’t want from advertisers who bear the cost and risk of the entire experience? That’s just so 2008. Now it’s time to go with the stream.

Loading mentions Retweet

Involvism is a term I found following the links in this Doc Searls post.

I instantly liked it. Why? Because it should be the new 'ism' for what used to be described as journalism. Journalism for/by/with everyone.

As Searls says:

In the old media world, freedom of speech belonged to companies that bought ink by the barrel. In the new media world, it belongs to everybody with a cell phone or a keyboard. Get used to it. Or, as Jonathan did, put it to use.

Loading mentions Retweet

 A crowd organised global conversation about the 2010 Tour de France.

Loading mentions Retweet

More interesting food for thought from Jeff Jarvis on the collaboration economy.

Curley says that “we intend to participate in that stream, in that revenue stream.” But what about the content stream? He needs to participate in what Marissa Mayer calls the hyperpersonal news stream. He has to break out of the idea of sites and portals and go to where the people are. Yet Curley said he’d prevent his customers from redistributing his content through emails or “re-syndication” – from the stream, in short.

The bolding is mine. Increasingly I find this to be true. I'm at the point now where I find the entire idea of a single site or portal to be a constraining thing from a creative point of view.

It's a locked in/up/down thing, forcing the content creators/consumers (now one and the same) into certain behaviours and modes of production that don't - in my opinion - represent the future of media.

It's also a resource thing. I now see sites and portals as heavy things, anchored in a single place, unable to go to where the action is, consuming time and resources in a way that's unnecessary.

Unlike looser social structures which give you real flexibility and the ability to react and reach across a range of platforms.

To, in effect, go where the action is - or be where the action is.

Something is starting to take shape, you can see and feel it. We're about to break free.

Single sites, single [media] organisations and single governments cannot hope to compete against the plurality of millions of producers, creators and consumers speaking to each other, collaborating with each other and sharing with each other.

Loading mentions Retweet

How it was done, and more.

Loading mentions Retweet

Serious media observers far and wide have had their say about ABC supremo Mark Scott's speech about the new media environment, Rupert Murdoch and private versus public publishing and broadcasting options.

Here's mine.

Scott's speech was un-remarkable, important not for it's content but for who was making it. Notable in that a public broadcaster was defining a different version to content publishing and production that that currently envisaged by Murdoch and his ilk.

But then, for the millions of people who have spent time exploring new forms of publishing content online in a first hand manner over the past decade, none of what he had to say would be news.

You could see this coming a mile away. Where was Scott five years ago?

Best line of the day goes to Ben Eltham at New Matilda.

In the land of the blind, the man with a print-out of a Clay Shirky blog is king.

Loading mentions Retweet

Via. Amusing comments thread too.

Loading mentions Retweet