loose wire blog

Tibet and the Information War

From EastSouthWestNorth

Rebecca Mackinnon of the Journalism and Media Studies Centre in Hong Kong does a great job of looking at how Chinese are increasingly skeptical of Western news agencies' perceived bias about what has happened in Tibet:

Hopefully most of China's netizens will draw the obvious conclusion: that in the end you shouldn't trust any information source - Western or Chinese, professional or amateur, digital or analog - until and unless they have earned your trust.

She provides some great examples including the apparent cropping of photos on CNN.com to shape the story. It's well worth a read.

Ethan Zuckerman takes issue with one BBC reporter who, he says, take all the criticism of coverage he has received as coming from government stooges: "In other words, there may be angry Chinese citizens contacting BBC reporters to complain about their coverage, but they’re being controlled by Chinese state media." (There's no link for the report so I can't follow this up.)

This is a fascinating discussion, because it represents something of a watershed in different ways:

• What was originally perceived to be a crisis for China's image of itself in the world may end up being something else. Too early to say yet;
• The first big international story that may, in the final analysis, be defined not by the (Western) mass media but by an online debate (kind word)/'information war' (probably more accurate word);
• The extent to which a country/nation defines itself is drifting from an official function to an informal, online one. An online fightback, and one which is done by its passionate and angry citizen, has much more credibility than a state-sponsored one.

'Stories' are shaped early on and it's a brave journalist who defies preconceptions and refuses to pander to them. (Brave usually because their editors will yell at them to provide copy and content to match their competitors, but also because they face viewer/reader harrassment.)

The Tibet story, which has not yet played itself out and may have more twists to come, is one of those stories any media should be mature enough to cover in a nuanced and unbiased way.

RConversation: Anti-CNN and the Tibet information war

Technorati Tags: bridgeblogging, china, tibet, censorship, blogging, information, truth, hong kong, ethan zuckerman, rebecca mackinnon, kazakhstan, borat, cnn, bbc

Power to the Consumer. (Is That All?)

Jan Chipchase, roving Nokia researcher, as ever inspires and provokes with this piece on the psychology of the coffee cup:

This Akasaka coffee shop includes a row of accessible power sockets (running a long the edge of the window) primarily to support laptop use - though over the course of an hour a number of people charged their phones (yes people here sometimes carry petite phone chargers). Recharging mobile devices in coffee shops is nothing new - but to what extent does the explicit nature of the infrastructure lead to new behaviours? Like? Well, maybe plugging in a printer? Or setting up a server. Or, or...

Jan points to the issues raised by offering power to consumers:

In some ways customers that don't use the power socket are subsidising those that do - after all they pay a the same for a cup of coffee. Or do power using power-users spend more money either on more items or on items that will last longer? What if the electricity socket was a stand-alone working micro market? As you plug into the socket your devices authenticates itself to the system, negotiates how much power (or fuel-cell fuel) it needs and charges away. As with the explicit presence of the socket to what extent does the explicit presence of a micro-market for power this extend existing behaviours? And given the relaxed ambiance that this coffee shop is trying to create is it desirable to create a market in this context?

It fascinates me that the average high street these days is as likely to have as many coffee shops as it is other kinds of outlets. And that people work, live, play, cry and get divorced in them. Why do we need the hustle and bustle of others to be productive?

But for me the biggest mystery is why these outlets don't bother to try to sell something more than just coffee, crappy CDs and bad finger food to these customers. Selling power to them might be a cheap shot, but let's face it, you're not really selling them coffee. You're selling them a place to work. A noise, an ambience. You're selling them the chance to feel cool. To show off their Air. To furtively check out members of a sexually appealing gender. To have physical proximity. To engage with engaging staff. A chance to get away from the office/family/silence.

That's what they're buying. But what about what they'd like to buy, that they just haven't considered yet? A chance to meet the people around them? A way to build an informal network with other users? To be able to print from their computers? To arrange pick up by FedEx? An ATM machine?

To me, Starbucks is never really about the coffee. Well, it is for the people who go in there, queue and then take it with them (and then, I think for a lot of them it's about delaying arrival in the office, or having something in their hands as a sort of weapon to take on the day; if it's halfway through the day it's a chance to get out of the office on an errand that is acceptable.) But for the people who stay in Starbucks, they're buying something else. And who knows what else they might buy if you try to sell it to them?

Jan Chipchase - Future Perfect: Behaviours Reflected

Technorati Tags: starbucks, jan chipchase, nokia, japan, power outlets, social space, work, coffee, environment