Ada Lovelace Day

About The Authors

Suw Charman-Anderson

Suw Charman-Anderson

Suw Charman-Anderson is a social software consultant and writer who specialises in the use of blogs and wikis behind the firewall. With a background in journalism, publishing and web design, Suw is now one of the UK’s best known bloggers, frequently speaking at conferences and seminars.

Her personal blog is Chocolate and Vodka, and yes, she’s married to Kevin.

Email Suw

Kevin Anderson

Kevin Anderson

Kevin Anderson is a freelance journalist and digital strategist with more than a decade of experience with the BBC and the Guardian. He has been a digital journalist since 1996 with experience in radio, television, print and the web. As a journalist, he uses blogs, social networks, Web 2.0 tools and mobile technology to break news, to engage with audiences and tell the story behind the headlines in multiple media and on multiple platforms.

From 2009-2010, he was the digital research editor at The Guardian where he focused on evaluating and adapting digital innovations to support The Guardian’s world-class journalism. He joined The Guardian in September 2006 as their first blogs editor after 8 years with the BBC working across the web, television and radio. He joined the BBC in 1998 to become their first online journalist outside of the UK, working as the Washington correspondent for BBCNews.com.

And, yes, he’s married to Suw.

E-mail Kevin.

Member of the Media 2.0 Workgroup
Dark Blogs Case Study

Case Study 01 - A European Pharmaceutical Group

Find out how a large pharma company uses dark blogs (behind the firewall) to gather and disseminate competitive intelligence material.


free page hit counter



hit counter script


All content © Kevin Anderson and/or Suw Charman

Interview series:
at the FASTforward blog. Amongst them: John Hagel, David Weinberger, JP Rangaswami, Don Tapscott, and many more!

Corante Blog

Thursday, January 24th, 2008

links for 2008-01-24

Posted by Kevin Anderson

Tuesday, January 22nd, 2008

links for 2008-01-22

Posted by Kevin Anderson

Thursday, January 17th, 2008

links for 2008-01-17

Posted by Kevin Anderson

Thursday, January 10th, 2008

links for 2008-01-10

Posted by Kevin Anderson

Wednesday, January 9th, 2008

The difference between journalists and ‘the media’

Posted by Kevin Anderson

I often try to draw a distinction between being a journalist, what I consider myself to be, and being a member of the ‘media’. Suw sometimes accuses me of splitting semantic hairs, but I really do believe that there is a difference. I think it’s highlighted in an exchange between Chris Matthews and Tom Brokaw. (from Glenn Greenwald):

MATTHEWS: Tom, we’re going to have to go back and figure out the methodology, I think, on some of these [polls].

BROKAW: You know what I think we’re going to have to do?

MATTHEWS: Yes sir?

BROKAW: Wait for the voters to make their judgment.

MATTHEWS: Well what do we do then in the days before the ballot? We must stay home, I guess.

BROKAW: No, no we don’t stay home. There are reasons to analyze what they’re saying. We know from how the people voted today, what moved them to vote. You can take a look at that. There are a lot of issues that have not been fully explored during all this.

But we don’t have to get in the business of making judgments before the polls have closed. And trying to stampede in effect the process.

Look, I’m not just picking on us, it’s part of the culture in which we live these days. I think that the people out there are going to begin to make judgments about us if we don’t begin to temper that temptation to constantly try to get ahead of what the voters are deciding.

I’m not opposed to journalists providing analysis. That’s part of good journalism, but media punditry is another beast entirely. To me, good journalism can weave a good narrative and present the facts in a broader context, but so often I see the media attempting to impose a narrative.

I was asked by a colleague before New Hampshire if rumours in the British media that Hillary Clinton would become Barack Obama’s running mate were true. It would be a perfect story: A black man and a woman. I said like so many stories in the media, it is an appealing story, but I don’t see any basis in fact for it. If you want to follow the line of interesting, albeit completely unsubstantiated tickets, it would be interesting to have a ticket of Barack Obama and former New Jersey governor and EPA administrator Christie Todd Whitman. It might also head off a Unity ‘08 bid by Michael Bloomberg. But that’s a fantasy football ticket, not one based on any insider knowledge or actual facts. However, as is often said of hacks and members of the media, never let the facts stand in the way of a good story.

Glenn Greewald asks:

Are Gloria Borger and Chris Matthews and Howard Fineman and Wolf Blitzer suddenly going to abandon their desire to impose shallow, melodramatic narratives on our elections and spend their time, instead, analyzing the candidates’ responses to Charlie Savage’s questionnaire on presidential power, or the dominant, corrosive role lobbyists and large corporations play in our political culture, or the widening rich-poor gap, or the strain and stain on our country from our imperial policies? The question is so absurd, so laughable, that to ask it is to answer it. None of them could remotely do that even if they wanted to, even if they were allowed to, and they don’t and aren’t.

And I think this is why there is popular anger towards the media and journalists who confuse literary journalism with literary fiction. It used to be one of my points of pride when I worked for the BBC that in the wake of the Nato bombing of Serbia, that Serbian National Guardsmen rose up in part because there was a disconnect between the propaganda on the state media and coverage provided by the BBC. They said they could see what was happening with their own eyes, and they believed the BBC. That’s the power of journalism.

The media only deals with substantive issues in the guise of the coverage of political palace intrigue and the horse race of elections. It’s sexy to the insider but is only of interest to journalists and their political sources. It trivialises politics and public policy into little more than a who’s up, who’s down, who’s in, who’s out farce. News flash to people inside the major capitals of the world - of which I’ve lived in two, London and Washington - most people don’t care about politics as much or think about politics the same way as you do. People accuse George Bush of only living in black and white, but the media inhabit that same world, portraying only binary opposition with no complexity or nuance.

I think it’s why we’ve seen the rise of citizen media. People don’t trust the narrative being shoved down their throats by well-coiffed, over-paid gossip mongers. The media rail away against unpaid people’s punditry in part because it shows what a common commodity their stock and trade is. Already the US and British media have got the story wrong on the US elections, and we’ve only just begun. The media is obsessed with obesity and a good diet, and yet the state of our dysfunctional democracies reflect the quality of our media diet.

But the media will simply say that they provide people with want they want and that they have the ratings or circulation to prove it. It is one of the frequent defences, and it is not without truth. And I know that overly worthy journalism has a small audience. It’s difficult to tell a complex story well, and journalism needs to sharpen its game. It’s always easy to appeal to audiences with simplistic stories made up of strong emotions and angles.

But people fed up with the media also need to vote as I did. I changed the channel, or often just shut off the television. We have unprecedented choice to create our own ‘channel’, and not simply to hear what we agree with but get the information we need. I not only buy the publications I think do good journalism, but I drop some coin in the PayPal jar of people who commit random acts of journalism and promote vigorous public debate. It’s a lean-forward, not a sit-back choice of media. But in the end, I find my media diet more satisfying.

It’s an election year in the United States, but already people have voted with their attention on the quality of the media. It’s not just a vast wasteland, soon it will be a lonely one.

Tags: , , ,

Monday, January 7th, 2008

My Seesmic experiment with the US Elections

Posted by Kevin Anderson

Suw and I started using Seesmic over the holidays, especially a fun night we had with our good friend “Kittenfluff” on New Year’s Eve. One thing that has impressed me thus far with my brief experience with Seesmic is the conversational, call and response nature of the video. YouTube is still a form of broadcast media to me, while I’ve seen several interesting conversations in the short time that I’ve been using Seesmic. I think this has as much to do with the community there as it does with the technology. It’s populated by people who are accustomed to “declarative living” as Suw calls it.

In a bit of inspiration this morning on my way into work, I thought about posting questions about the US Elections into Seesmic and getting some response to spark off a debate on the Guardian’s US politics blog, Deadline USA. I could then embed the video responses into the Guardian’s blog. Not having been in Seesmic very long, I first posted a video to see if people were comfortable with me doing this. The response was overwhelmingly positive.

Suw pointed out that it might make it difficult to bridge the conversation between the Guardian’s blog and Seesmic seeing as it’s a closed alpha. Thus far, that hasn’t been a problem. There has been a lot of buzz inside of Seesmic but relatively little participation on Deadline USA. I’m hoping that it picks up over the next day or so, but as I was explaining to some of our journalists today, comments on our site represent just a fraction of the conversation around our content. It’s often blog posts and other responses off site that are the vast majority of the participation in a social media experience. It is a little difficult to fully reflect all of this activity inside of Seesmic, but I am sure that it will develop. These things take time, and one of the biggest mistakes is to start a conversation and then walk away from it as many news organisations with little social media experience do.

As for this experiment, it’s too early to call it a success or a failure. I’ve been impressed by the response thus far and look forward to it playing out over the next few days. But what really has me excited thus far is hearing from a voter in Maine talking about his issues as well as hearing opinions about the US elections from other places around the world. It still gets my journalistic blood flowing when the internet opens doors around the world.

I think there is something interesting here, both on Seesmic and also on ways to build conversation around video. Right now, Seesmic is pretty small, and even now, following the threads is challenging. But I think this moves online video in a new direction, a more conversational direction. It’s great to start the New Year off with something new to push the boundaries with. The tool, the technology is only part of the process of innovation, creativity gets you the rest of the way to your goals.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Friday, January 4th, 2008

links for 2008-01-04

Posted by Kevin Anderson

Saturday, December 29th, 2007

links for 2007-12-29

Posted by Kevin Anderson

Saturday, December 15th, 2007

links for 2007-12-15

Posted by Kevin Anderson

Friday, December 14th, 2007

links for 2007-12-14

Posted by Kevin Anderson