I’d like to think that when Brooks Jackson and Kathleen Hall Jamieson published their book un.Spun: Finding facts in a world of [disinformation] in 2007, much of the cyberspace-connected world (I've to make this distinction because I've friends who vehemently point out that not everywhere is like the U.S., so there… I said it!) was just awakening to the intriguing potential of Web 2.0 communication and socialized media.
But in a sense, their scholarship came at an opportune time when talk about the new paradigm and attitude to communication in PR 2.0 was also gaining momentum.
How does the two reconcile, you may ask?
Jackson and Jamieson primarily deal with the cornerstone theme of fact-finding in the ocean of information, and how people ought to protect themselves from the predominance of spin and misinformation in the midst of consuming today’s media. As they put it, people must be taught how to fend for themselves exactly because they are daily being exposed to such an enormous volume of deception that goes unchallenged by government regulators, the courts or the news media (2007, pp. 21-23).
That is well and true, but before we get to the how, I thought it’ll be interesting to do a quick expose on the human psyche.
The Human Conundrum
I really like the point they make that people aren't hard-wired to be fact-driven. On the contrary, irrationality tends to rule. The authors (2007, pp. 19-21) quote psychology tests that demonstrate how we tend to, when receiving information, seek out even weak evidence just to support their base beliefs, ignore or play down other evidence that undercuts those beliefs, and even go to the extent of applying stringent tests on conflicting evidence with the hope of debunking them, while at the same time failing to critically evaluate the truthfulness of the side of the argument that they have adopted.
We all have a mental desire for certainty (perhaps this harks back to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs where certainty is linked to a feeling of security? – my posit only), and share in the dislike of having to agonize over whether a right decision was made. Jackson and Jamieson (2007, pp. 79-81) argue that although this may help us avoid being frozen by indecision, it can also cause us to be ‘locked in’ on a particular mindset that’s hard to reverse even after new facts emerge.
Think WMDs in Iraq, which was one of the basis of the American invasion of the country. Then think about the gradual turn of the narrative tide when none was found, but the occupation continued.
Alright, maybe this is too political an example, with too many other nuanced factors to be considered. Try this then...
Think about a phonecall to your local bank, where, after negotiating a maze of buttons to finally get to the operator, you’re put on hold because of high call volume. A minute passes, and you wait. Then two, and five and soon, its 10 minutes, and you’re still waiting and getting that notoriously despised ‘your call is important to us’ message. After a certain threshold (mine’s 15 minutes tops!) we seem to enter a zone where we agonize at having waited for so long, but feel reluctant to hang up because of the notion of hope that somebody will come on line the next second.
I should know, since I went through this drill yesterday. I just hung up after 10 minutes.
Back to this…
It proves the point that people manage most of the time on an ‘autopilot’ mode, and use mental shortcuts (or heuristics) so as to avoid having to think everything through constantly. And while the authors agree that cruising on autopilot is useful in helping people deal with the mundane and minutiae in life, it helps to switch on the thinking cap when it comes to making bigger decisions.
In short, we’re challenged to always consider the arguments presented, and counterarguments to be had.
But going back to the initial operating environment described by Jackson and Jamieson, just how do we manage our information when there’s so much misinformation?
The Socialized Cyberspace Sieve
This is where the Internet comes in. If used carefully, it’s actually a very powerful solution to the spin we find in today's world because it gives people so much more direct access to knowledge and information that at any other point in time (Jackson and Jamieson, 2007, (pp. 127-128).
Of course, we do have to be cautious with the things we see online because anybody can say anything they want on it; they may also make their postings anonymously, or through an avatar, or even under an assumed identity.
But where there is uncertainty individually, there is strength collectively! And this is where the power of the socialized media should be tapped for fact-finding purposes.
“Social media and Web 2.0 are altering the entire media landscape, placing the power of influence in the hands of regular people with expertise, opinions, and the drive and passion to share those opinion,” say PR 2.0 evangelists Brian Solis and Deirdre Breakenridge (2009, p.1).
The socialized web is empowering a new class of authoritative voices and these are people just like you and me.
It’s the power of a community of contextualized knowledge – a massive network of almost self-policing information put in the right place and setting.
In his most recent blog on 30 Mar 2009, Solis said, “Socialized media is empowering us to not only consume content, but also create it. This is the era of new influencers and we become media and earn authority based on the content we share and also how and where we participate.”
Take the news for example.
I was doing a piece of public affairs research just two months back about the U.S. media coverage on the ongoing violence in Mexico due to the drug situation, and was looking at the ABC story by Avila, Tribolet and Mucha on 28 Dec 2009 in particular.
That news piece was, in my opinion, certainly not one that measured up to the highest of journalistic standards because it was outdated, over generalized and intended to mislead (click here to read more about that media analysis project).
But being a story covered on a prominent broadcast media, was there any hint of people getting grossly led on the wrong track?
Surprisingly, not at all.
The ABC story generated a list of 25 comments from readers, and a quick review of the postings reveal that they are not misled by one sided or inaccurate reporting. In fact, many of the ‘netizens’ who commented on the ABC story highlighted their unhappiness over the an old story, and its overgeneralization about the troubles in the Baja region.
There’re also posts by readers who highlight the point that much of the violence in Mexico is actually being fuelled by the demand for drugs in North America. This and the flow of U.S. guns and money into the hands of the cartels have all but been proven to be absolutely true in the recent media coverage of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to Mexico.
The power of collective contextualized knowledge that gives expert power to the ordinary folks.
Jackson and Jamieson (2007, p. 159) echo the same point when they suggest as a rule that when doing fact-checking, one should always verify if the claim is being backed up by an expert panel. Triangulate the information, they say. Agreement by a community of experts is usually indicative of the credibility of the information, and while consensus isn't proof, we can nevertheless be much more confident that we’re starting on the right footing if we use information that’s accepted by authorities on all sides.
In today’s world of socialized media, that means all of us are experts with the power to get involved (I’d say, why not try a Twitter Search factcheck on a topic of choice to have a taste of what people are talking about?).
What does this mean for Communication Practitioners?
For one thing, the same lessons that un.Spun provides for normal consumers of media and information to watch out for are also the very communication pitfalls that we as practitioners must avoid. I think this aspect is clear enough so I will not elaborate on it.
But coming back to this focus on Web 2.0 and the socialized media, I'd argue that our credibility as communication professionals will depend on how much people see us as knowledge or content leaders – whatever our organizations may be.
Regardless of our communication platform, our aim is to become a trusted and sought-after knowledge resource for the community (Solis and Breakenridge, 2009, p.18).
Apart from building our own presence on the Web by listening in on ongoing conversations in the WWW, and by participating in dialogues on social media platforms, blogger relations is also another area worth looking into as we seek to build content leadership and help the organization gain an aura of legitimacy (David Meerman Scott, 2007, pp. 16-17).
“Instead of focusing efforts on a potential PR blockbuster success, say [a one-off] appearance on the Oprah Show, it may well be more effective to have hundreds of bloggers reviewing the same product and service, and then virally communicating this across the web to reach potentially countless readers and customers,” Scott (2007, p.24) continues with his point.
But this isn’t so much about getting in touch with the bloggers as it is about developing thoughtful, genuine and disambiguated content to create chatter on the Web.
Good, honest content would influence bloggers to talk about it, which would lead to buzz and traction for the company and its products on and offline. It’s the age of curiosity or affinity marketing – as blogger and communication practitioner Carrie Wilkerson puts it during a recent online webinar organized by the Social Media Bootcamp (SMB) by Joel Comm.
Instead of selling something directly, a great website, a great blog or podcast, or an ebook [i.e. your overall presence on the Web], is actually telling the world indirectly that you’re smart, and that you understand the market very well, and that you’d be a valuable and trustworthy person to do business with because of the leadership in the marketplace of ideas (Scott, 2007, p.38).
Conclusion
While Jackson and Jamieson’s book offers largely timeless tips about rising above the cacophony of noise or disinformation, I felt I just had to run with their point about how the Internet can be a great resource, and point to how social media can actually provide people with more channels and avenues to verify not just the factual validity but also the contextual validity of claims they’re trying to investigate.
Web 2.0 is a tremendous resource for aggregated truth and knowledge, and this is also forcing organizations to rethink their traditional marketing approaches and move into knowledge production and content leadership as a means of getting their thoughts above the dross and informational flotsam [read SPAM].
I'm anticipating that this will create a new dynamic in the information economy: a web-savvy and healthily skeptical community meeting with a new corporate conscience dedicated to leadership in great and meaningful content.
It may be un.Spun coming to life in a brand new light!