Modern-day tribes and the value of Values

nobody@vox.com(Omigog) — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 14:36:00 -0700

"I only buy organic." "I love Patagonia."

"I'm Buddhist/Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/Atheist/Independent/Democratic/Republican/Black/White."

Human nature is pretty constant; we've always affiliated with a tribe of some sort. Call it a matter of survival, safety in numbers, identity...whatever.

I've started thinking about Web 2.0/3.0 services in this context. On top of other things, these services enable anyone to self-publish as well as filter out information. Aren't self-publishing and filtering really just modern-day tools for identifying, widely broadcasting and building our tribal affiliations? With easier access to a global network, "finding our people" isn't limited by proximity, birth or default. It's taking on a webified push/pull model. It's the only way we can make sense of the infoglut.

We affiliate with people, ideas and viewpoints, not just with products or consumer brands. Today, we are our own brand and our network is a critical component. Especially when our networks span multiple contexts, we serve as a unifier. This makes the world feel bigger ("I had no idea there were so many people who shared my interests") as well as smaller (I can more easily find "my people"). The concept of affiliation today seems far more values-based than even just a few years ago. The value of Values feels more at the surface of things these days....how we think about investing, politics, media coverage, etc.

Like anything, there are two sides to this coin. While human nature is to affiliate with like-minded folks because it makes us feel good and that we belong, the flip side is that it's just as easy to separate ourselves from people who think differently than we do. What's our incentive to seek out opposing perspectives? Does someone else really need to be "wrong" in order for us to be "right"?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Do traditional media still serve the public interest?

nobody@vox.com(Omigog) — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 11:52:52 -0700

Great article in today's LA Times

In a speech delivered by Tony Blair to Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, he comments candidly on sensationalism in the media.

The business of media has created a market for consolidation and 24-hour entertainment. With fewer folks at the helm, fewer viewpoints are represented in general...and, certainly, within the span of a single property. Mainstream media is losing the authentic "debate and dialog" nature that serves the public interest. When Paris Hilton makes more headlines than Darfur or our dwindling civil rights, it's time to step back and re-evaluate.

A friend of mine often says (about something different) that "the solution to pollution is dilution". I can't help but think this applies to our media plight as well.

In contrast to the traditional media, the Internet is still "of the people, by the people, for the people"...for as long as Net Neutrality exists. Bottom-up media (or "participatory media", "citizen journalism") offers many different voices on the same issue. The challenge now, is to make this model sustainable.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

pierre’s Friends

Modern-day tribes and the value of Values

Do traditional media still serve the public interest?