Observing a Dying Model of Information Control

Observing a Dying Model of Information Control

When it comes to blogging or journalism, Jay Rosen is smarter than me. He is the living example of academic study dedicated to the science of information. I have one advantage he does not, I've been in the information business of delivering electronic content for 19 years, longer than the internet has been around. While he is a powerful voice in the study of information science, in the online space I have the advantage of understanding information operation strategy and tactics in action at a level he may need CISSP courses just to stay in the conversation.

Sometimes uneducated but experienced professionals like me can keep up with the real knowledge experts, and I'm hoping my experience can offer useful contribution to his very interesting discussion.

Jay Rosen has contributed a very important discussion on his PressThink blog that I think represents a point-in-time analysis of the shift taking place in the information space today.Audience Atomization Overcome: Why the Internet Weakens the Authority of the Press is brilliant.

Jay leverages this diagram from the 1986 book The Uncensored War by press scholar Daniel C. Hallin to discuss the hidden politics in the practice of journalism. The diagram is explained as thus:

It’s easily the most useful diagram I’ve found for understanding the practice of journalism in the United States, and the hidden politics of that practice. You can draw it by hand right now. Take a sheet of paper and make a big circle in the middle. In the center of that circle draw a smaller one to create a doughnut shape. Label the doughnut hole “sphere of consensus.” Call the middle region “sphere of legitimate debate,” and the outer region “sphere of deviance.”

He goes on in great detail to explain the connections as they relate to journalists and politics. I think he makes an interesting case, and it is a must read for anyone who works in public affairs or the press, but I think there is more here. The problem I see with Jay's analysis is that he suggests that the unregulated nature of the Web 2.0 medium, what he describes as horizontal connectivity, is the means by which journalism is losing authority.

Is the means simply a medium or is it more specific to content competition? If it simply a medium, then all Jay has done is produced a model of journalism geography. When I look at this model, I see something bigger. Instead of suggesting this model explains why journalism is losing authority, I'd suggest this model explains why the way journalistic authority is exercised is changing during the current information transition period enabled by new technologies and connectivity.

When I look at this diagram, I recognize it instantly from my professional work, it is essentially a model that explains information control. What this model highlights is the current methodology of content flow. The content flows from the core out to the middle, where it is filtered, then again out to the masses outside the circle. If you are one who has ever complained about the media controlling the message in politics, Jay is a must read. If you are in public affairs or part of a private enterprise frustrated that your company message is getting lost in the filter, read on and I'll explain not only why your message never reaches the masses, but also why corporations pay nerds like me to evolve their message with technology and connectivity.

I see a “sphere of consensus” that represents almost every traditional government and commercial enterprise public affairs office in the country. Essentially, every public or private enterprise has a message, they own that message and have consensus when representing it publicly, but this information has been delivered the same way forever, in a press release. Historically, the content generated in the “sphere of consensus” has always had to flow through the “sphere of legitimate debate” to reach the masses. Using the model above, content generated in the “sphere of consensus” is raw, unfiltered content.

I see a “sphere of legitimate debate” that enriches the raw content with content contributors who generate narratives for the masses (media, analyst, author, blog, radio, etc). The content enrichment process by content contributors produces what the masses call news, editorials, and analysis. The content contributors who dominate the “sphere of legitimate debate” act in the role of a filter for the raw information flowing from the “sphere of consensus.”

Finally, I see a “sphere of deviance” of folks who represent groups whose size reflects the consensus of any specific narrative generated by a content contributor. The primary characteristic of a member of the “sphere of deviance” is that they don't generate new narratives, they simply reflect the consensus of any specific narrative already generated on a topic, and the size of the consensus in the “sphere of deviance” reflects the strength of the narrative generated by a content contributor in the “sphere of legitimate debate”.

Unlike what Jay is suggesting, I believe content consensus is only achieved when the raw content produces a single narrative in the “sphere of legitimate debate”, and that narrative becomes the accepted majority of folks in the “sphere of deviance”. In other words, real consensus only exists when the majority of folks in all three spheres share a single narrative.

Looking at the model it is important to recognize it is linear, or put another way 2-dimensional. There is an information flow process for content, and in this model the narrative is added by those who don't actually own the raw data. Any content contributor in the “sphere of legitimate debate” acts as the filter for the raw content under this model, thus is able to exercise information control regarding what is delivered to the masses.

So what makes this model important? Today, government and commercial enterprises have messages for the masses, but have historically had to pay some cost (money, criticism, etc.) to the filters in the "sphere of legitimate debate" to get content to the masses. Web 2.0 is changing this model, and thus rendering the diagram above obsolete in the process.

The next evolution in information comes as public affairs in the enterprises represented in the "sphere of consensus" no longer depends on the "sphere of legitimate debate", and without those content filters can reach the masses in the "sphere of deviance" with a narrative directly without costs to their content.

Many people didn't understand it when it was happening, but Team Obama participated heavily in the current information evolution during the recent election process many times; text messaging the VP announcement to cell phones being one example. By operating in the 3D plane of content distribution, they connected horizontally by jumping over the filters in the "sphere of legitimate debate" time and time again delivering a raw narrative that accurately represented the consensus position of the Obama camp, the result being the filters became part of the masses, or put another way, the filter for content was eliminated.

The ability for enterprises to deliver directly to the masses, without the cost or filters that come with moving content through the "sphere of legitimate debate" is transforming the 2D model of information control Jay is discussing (a model journalists have long enjoyed), and will turn it into a 3D model for content distribution with a narrative. The results of this evolution will weaken the way journalism currently controls information.

That will force the evolution in journalism that is slow in development but already happening, whereby journalists reclaim authority by learning to compete for position in the hierarchy of the 3D distribution model. The emerging 3D distribution model removes filters by design, so some of what Jay is suggesting under the current 2D diagram does not hold true in the emerging 3D model. For example, under the old model in his diagram, I would suggest Jay is right to exclude controversial figures like Glenn Greenwald from the “sphere of legitimate debate” for the reasons he explains. However, under the model that is emerging in the transition, people like Glenn Greenwald gets to sit at the table again, primarily because he has a network within the hierarchy that gives him some authority in the emerging 3D model.

Andrew Sullivan is a great example of someone who has already integrated himself into the emerging 3D model. To be more precise, there is a reason Andrew calls his work the content distribution equivalent of an online disc jockey (see pg4 of that excellent article). Essentially, he is able to exercise his authority to control content by what I describe as "herding the cats" to the information he, as a content contributor, deems to be legitimate. Andrews strength in the emerging distribution model is that he has built a large network to establish and maintain his authority as a journalist, even if it is as a "blogger". In the end I don't see Web 2.0 reducing the authority of journalism over content as Jay Rosen suggests; I see it is changing the way authority is strengthened and exercised.

Want a peek at the emerging model? Use the same diagram Jay does, but instead of the linear, one way content flow of information control, the content flow from the core sphere hits the other two spheres at the same time with the same narrative. Essentially, draw an arrow from the core to the middle sphere, and retrace the line with a new arrow to outside the circle. However, journalism is evolving too, so you have to also draw two arrows from the center sphere to both the core and the masses outside the circle.

Because the core creates its own narrative in the emerging model, journalists may require better analytical skill and expertise to engage that narrative in the "sphere of legitimate debate", a process of rebranding a narrative from the core with a new filter.

With this requirement to rebrand a narrative, a journalists may need assistance, therefore need to build a network of blogger professionals and experts that also operates in the "sphere of legitimate debate" (happens in journalism already) to assist them in their work. We have already seen this process develop to some extent, a journalist will exercise their authority by building up the authority of their blogger partners who develop their own narratives, a give and take process that strengthens the network of a journalist.

I really like Jay Rosen's post, but I see it as a dieing 2D linear model of information control giving way to an emerging 3D, networked, hierarchical, content distribution model with journalists higher in the hierarchy than bloggers, but part of the same network. There is strength in networks, which is why I believe the internet will ultimately strengthen, not weaken as Jay suggests, the authority of professional journalism because building networks will become part of the job. That isn't a bad thing for journalism, larger networks translates to larger audiences.

H/T: Critt Jarvis