Update: de vacature is inmiddels vervuld.
Stronks Nieuwe Media breidt uit. Ben je student en is het jouw ambitie publieke communicatie in het algemeen en de journalistiek in het bijzonder opnieuw te helpen uitvinden? Solliciteer dan voor de functie van parttime student-assistent bij Stronks Nieuwe Media.
Stronks Nieuwe Media is de eenmanszaak van Jaap Stronks, gevestigd in Rotterdam. Ik hou me bezig met de volgende zaken:
Stronks Nieuwe Media zoekt per direct een: student-assistent (m/v). Jij:
Stronks Nieuwe Media biedt een uitdagende, flexibele parttime functie; omvang in overleg. Je doet vaardigheden & kennis op en krijgt toegang tot een interessant netwerk. Voor concrete werkzaamheden (waaronder redactiewerk, research, interviews afnemen) krijg je een vergoeding als freelancer, eventueel via een Payrollbedrijf. Stronks Nieuwe Media is gevestigd in Rotterdam, maar je zult overwegend je eigen uren kunnen indelen en op afstand werken.
Solliciteren: stuur een e-mail met CV, motivatie en relevante links naar jaap@jaapstronks.nl.
Achter de schermen werk ik al een tijdje aan een groot project van Stronks Nieuwe Media: een flinke database met screencasts, handleidingen en artikelen. Die worden toegankelijk gemaakt op een afzonderlijke website, en bijvoorbeeld gecombineerd met de trainingen ‘publiceren op het web’ die ik geef. Bij wijze van voorproefje een tweetal screencasts waarin in enkele minuten het audiobewerkingsprogramma Audacity – beschikbaar voor Mac, Windows en Linux – wordt gedemonstreerd. Feedback is welkom; zo merk ik zelf dat het wellicht beter is de screencasts meer te scripten – dat voorkomt gehakkel tussendoor en maakt de presentatie efficiënter.
Hier de eerste screencast, waarin audio wordt geïmporteerd plus opgenomen en als MP3 weer wordt gemonteerd. Druk op de fullscreen-knop voor betere weergave. Er is ook een iPhone-versie en een HD-versie (1440 * 900).
Update: de eerste video is gewijzigd en opnieuw geüpload op basis van geleverde feedback. In de tweede screencast worden de meest basale montage-commando’s gedemonstreerd; deze video komt later opnieuw online, zodra ook die is vernieuwd.
Update 2: hieronder is de vervolgvideo over Audacity, waarin de meest basale montagetechnieken (knippen, plakken, volumes wijzigen) worden gedemonstreerd.
Jeff Jarvis, the guy with the top spot in my RSS reader, has grown tired of ‘curmudgeons’ (bad-tempered people with stubborn notions) – they’re just slowing him down in his quest for the future of journalism:
[O]ne of them issued the usual yes-buts, such as, “Well, have you looked at the home page of YouTube, huh?” I said he was wasting my time[.]
Jay Rosen responds (‘You have to persist’), to which Jarvis replies:
I suppose what you’re saying is that we should — we even have a duty to — grab their hands off the wheel and save the boat. What I’m saying is that I’m not at all sure that is worth the time and effort (and frustration) anymore.
Is that true? For Jeff Jarvis, it very well may be. I mean that without a hint of sarcasm: he’s at the steering wheel of the train to the future of journalism, and guys like that shouldn’t be slowed down by passengers who are still unsure of which train to catch – or where the train station is. Or why they should go some place else, or what a train is – sorry, you get the point.
But for the rest of us: there are a lot of people out there who may seem curmudgeonly, or who happen to hang out with curmudgeons more than is good for them. Jeff Jarvis has had his fair share of people reciting Andrew Keen arguments (to the extent that he ‘s tempted by the idea of burning Keen’s book, The Cult of the Amateur), but I have to give Keen credit for exposing a wider audience to the discussion about the promise of online media – even though the guy is only half half right: half the time half right, half the time plain wrong.
The online revolution is about change. Most people don’t like change, because – well, because it’s different. They’re uncertain, stubborn and sometimes a bit stupid – all perfectly natural behaviour, I’d say. Which results in endless discussions, conferences and presentations where people like Jeff Jarvis are confronted by ‘curmudgeons’ throwing tired clichés at him.
But like Warren Harrison says, curmudgeons aren’t born that way. They are a natural byproduct of change. They need people who talk to them. Sure, some are beyond saving and should be ignored, fired, whatever. But should we ignore someone like Andrew Keen, becasue he apparently ‘doesn’t get it’? Should we abandon everyone who ‘doesn’t get’ the fact that the ship is sinking?
Some people should, so they can move ahead and look for new land. Me, I’ll go and convince some more people and point at the rising waters – and I’ll take on any curmudgeon who’ll cross my path, any day of the week.
Update: don’t miss Jay Rosen’s insightful comment:
The curmudgeon type is not only a product of that culture but deeply expressive of it. If you believe that meeting the challenge of new media means for serious journalists a new culture surrounding the work–expressive but of different ideas and possibilities– then the curmudgeon type is a good place to start simply because it reflects so much of the old. There’s a lot of distilled pressthink in it.
(Some of my posts are in English. They have their own category and RSS feed.)
I posted a comment to Stowe Boyd’s story about the death of A-list bloggers - or of blogging in general, for that matter. It’s up for moderation, but it’s gotten pretty lengthy so I’ll post it here already (I’m not quite ready yet to declare death on blogging).
Context: Jim Kukral says the A-list is dead because we don’t need one anymore. I agree.
Stowe Boyd says there will always be A-lists because those ‘power laws’ are part of human nature.
That’s agreeable, but way too simple.
My comment:
I don’t think Jim is saying that those power laws are going away. But those laws are flexible, just as human nature is to a certain extent.
We can just as easily assign authority to a relatively abstract entity such as a newspaper instead of a human being (which would be more ‘natural’), if technical and economical limitations force us to do so, because a single human voice cannot reach a sizable audience on its own – we devise a editorial formula with a brand, throw in a bunch of people (editors, writers, columnists) whose respective reputations are of less importance than the overall brand – the Newspaper.
Ironically, the newspaper proves that assigning authority and reputation solely to individuals has its limitations. But the newspaper model is limited as well: there are only so many newspapers you can read, and the need for protecting the integrity and consistency of the formula makes it a difficult stage to get access to.
The blogosphere isn’t really that much different. Even if you use an RSS-reader, you can only subscribe to so many feeds. If you don’t, there are even less websites you can keep up with by regular browsing. No wonder an A-list is created, and the A-listers feel a big pressure to behave in the ways that are necessary to protect their A status.
The rise of new social tools promise to level the playing field in a bigger way than blogging has done. It’s hard to do, because once you’re big, you want to stay big – which is why the same sites are always on the Digg frontpage, for instance.
But the big fish only stay big because we keep feeding them. And it’s pretty simple: we keep feeding them because our fish bowl isn’t very big. But when attention is no longer primarily assigned to formal organisations (such as newspapers) or individual bloggers, our fish bowl does get bigger. I know I shouldn’t stretch metaphors, but: some of my fish can more easily swim to other bowls, and other fish can swim to mine. Even if I get to keep my favorite fish because they’re my friends and I trust them.
“the same distribution of popularity, authority, and influence will arise” – really? I don’t think so. It will be unequal and everything, since that *is* human nature. But every house decorator can tell you that rearranging the furniture may have a great effect
on behaviour and, possibly, on social relations.
18 mei
Update: here’s the RSS-feed of only my English blog posts.
Going Solo, the conference for freelancers and small business owners in a digital world, was awesome – great keynotes, great crowd. But I really made the right decision to stay over for the weekend: since the conference itself was chock full of keynotes and panel sessions (which is great), I could use the following day to hang out with really wonderful people such as Thibaut ‘people over 25 don’t get social media’ Thomas, Stowe Boyd, Stephanie Booth, Stephanie Troeth, Laura Fitton, Caroline Maerten, Martin Röll and others.
That was actually just as inspiring and fun as the conference itself (which makes sense, since most of them were actually speaking at Going Solo). Caroline and I even recorded video interviews with Stowe and Stephanie, which will hopefully be posted soon. I feel very lucky that I’ve been able to spend time with these great people, I’m still buzzing with excitement.
It was especially fun to watch 99,999 balloons go up into the air. Lots of them who were released from a lower part of Lausanne; they flew over our heads, but then descended upon us because of the weight of raindrops, and we actually could pick them out of the air, shake off the water and re-release them into the sky. Photos are here, my other Going Solo pictures are here. Links to more coverage at Going Solo. Below, you can see conference organizer Stephanie Booth releasing a balloon.
16 mei
The Going Solo conference has just started, we’re being welcomed by Stephanie Booth. More live blogging later, I’ll keep this post updated in the course of the day. Actually, I’ll just use Coveritlive.com for liveblogging, see below. My Flickr photos can be found here. More coverage links at the Going Solo page. Update: check out my new blogpost, Going Solo: the day after. Oh and by the way, here’s the RSS-feed of only my English blog posts.
(English translation below) Opgepikt op Twitter: de VPRO heeft in zijn documentaire over Wikipedia een heel stuk video van de bekende live-videoblogger Chris Pirillo gekopieerd en in bewerkte vorm in de documentaire geplakt, zonder diens toestemming of zelfs maar zijn naam te vermelden. Sterker nog, de documentaire begínt zelfs met Pirillo (dezelfde die blogde over mijn twittercasting-vondst, inderdaad) die op satirische wijze stelt hoe achterhaald dingen als papier, pennen en encyclopedieën eigenlijk zijn. Na wat gekrakeel van Pirillo-fans op YouTube klaagt ook Pirillo zelf op Twitter: “This is wrong. They didn’t even give me credit for this. [...] come ON!”. En in een latere Tweet:
What I sternly object to is that this well produced piece edited my video w/o permission and w/o attribution!!! Not cool.
‘t Is natuurlijk nogal ironisch, hoe een instituut als de VPRO een documentaire over de merites van Web2.0, amateurisme versus professionalisme en de status van ‘gratis’ informatie, begint met een geripte video zonder bronvermelding of enige andere vorm van credits. Zie de video ‘The Truth According to Wikipedia’ hieronder, of bekijk de Nederlandstalige versie Wiki’s Waarheid (welke overigens evenmin de naam of website van Pirillo vermeldt).
Toevallig zal ik donderdag aanwezig zijn bij een publiek debat over deze documentaire met onder anderen programmamaker IJsbrand van Veelen, en ik zal hier zeker even een vraag over stellen!
Translation: the Dutch public broadcasting service VPRO used a full minute of video by Chris Pirillo (coincidentally, the same who linked to me earlier this week about Twittercasting) in its latest documentary, The Truth According to Wikipedia, without permission or giving credit. This was was noticed by fans of Pirillo on YouTube as well as by Pirillo himself. In a later Twitter message, Pirillo says:
What I sternly object to is that this well produced piece edited my video w/o permission and w/o attribution!!! Not cool.
There’s no need to point out the irony here, given the fact that this is a documentary made by a renowned, traditional public broaddcasting service, which criticizes the Web2.0 phenomenon and the merit and ethics of ‘amateurs’ providing free information on the internets….
As a coincidence, I’ll be attending a public debate about the documentary next Thursday. I’ll definitely ask the filmmaker a question about this issue, if it hasn’t already been resolved by then.
