I want to talk about the transformed media landscape, and what it means for anybody who has a message that they want to get out to anywhere in the world. And I want to illustrate that by telling a couple of stories about that transformation.
Vreau sa va vorbesc depre peisajul mediatic schimbat si ce inseamna asta pentru oricine are un mesaj si vrea sa-l transmita oriunde in lume. Si vreau sa va arat asta spunandu-va cateva istorioare despre aceasta transformare.
I'll start here. Last November there was a presidential election. You probably read something about it in the papers. And there was some concern that in some parts of the country there might be voter suppression. And so a plan came up to video the vote. And the idea was that individual citizens with phones capable of taking photos or making video would document their polling places, on the lookout for any kind of voter suppression techniques, and would upload this to a central place. And that this would operate as a kind of citizen observation -- that citizens would not be there just to cast individual votes, but also to help ensure the sanctity of the vote overall.
O sa incep aici. In Noiembrie trecut au fost alegeri prezidentiale. Probabil ati citit cate ceva prin ziare. Au fost si cateva ingrijorari prin tara ca ar putea fi o reprimare a votantilor. Asa a aparut un plan de a filma votul. Si idea era ca cetatenii cu telefoane capabile sa faca fotografii sau sa filmeze sa documenteze ce se intampla in sectiile lor de votare cu atentie catre orice fel de tehnica de suprimare a votantilor. Apoi vor incarca totul intr-un singur loc. Iar acesta va functiona ca un fel de observator civic. Asa ca cetatenii nu doar isi vor exprima votul individual, dar vor asigura si sanctitatea votului general.
So this is a pattern that assumes we're all in this together. What matters here isn't technical capital, it's social capital. These tools don't get socially interesting until they get technologically boring. It isn't when the shiny new tools show up that their uses start permeating society. It's when everybody is able to take them for granted. Because now that media is increasingly social, innovation can happen anywhere that people can take for granted the idea that we're all in this together.
Deci avem un tipar care presupune ca suntem cu totii implicati in chestia asta. Ce conteaza aici nu este capitalul tehnic. Ci capitalul social. Mecanismele acestea nu devin interesante din punct de vedere social pana cand nu devin plictisitoare din punct de vedere tehnologic. Cand apar mecanisme noi si stralucitoare ele nu incep sa fie utilizate imediat in societate. Este despre atunci cand oricine le ia drept garantate. Pentru ca acum, aceasta media este in crestere din punct de vedere social, inovatia se poate intampla oriunde acesti oameni au inteles ca suntem toti in aceeasi situatie.
And so we're starting to see a media landscape in which innovation is happening everywhere, and moving from one spot to another. That is a huge transformation. Not to put too fine a point on it, the moment we're living through -- the moment our historical generation is living through -- is the largest increase in expressive capability in human history. Now that's a big claim. I'm going to try to back it up.
Si asa incepem sa vedem un peisaj mediatic in care inovatia se intampla peste tot. Si miscandu-se de la un punct la altul. E o transformare imensa. Nu vreau sa sublinez mai mult , dar momentul pe care-l traim momentul istoric pe care generatia noastra il traieste are cea mai mare crestere in capacitatea de expresie din istoria umana. Asta e o afirmatie importanta. O sa incerc sa o sustin cu dovezi.
There are only four periods in the last 500 years where media has changed enough to qualify for the label "revolution." The first one is the famous one, the printing press: movable type, oil-based inks, that whole complex of innovations that made printing possible and turned Europe upside-down, starting in the middle of the 1400s. Then, a couple of hundred years ago, there was innovation in two-way communication, conversational media: first the telegraph, then the telephone. Slow, text-based conversations, then real-time voice based conversations. Then, about 150 years ago, there was a revolution in recorded media other than print: first photos, then recorded sound, then movies, all encoded onto physical objects. And finally, about 100 years ago, the harnessing of electromagnetic spectrum to send sound and images through the air -- radio and television. This is the media landscape as we knew it in the 20th century. This is what those of us of a certain age grew up with, and are used to.
Sunt doar patru perioade in ultimii 500 ani cand media a schimbat destul de mult ca sa se califice pentru etichetarea de "revolutie". Prima, cea mai faimoasa a fost masina de tiparit. Litere independente, cerneluri pe baza de ulei, tot complexul de inovatii care au facut tiparul posibil si a intors Europa de sus in jos, incepand cu mijlocul anilor 1400. Apoi cu cateva sute de ani in urma a fost inovatia in comunicarea bidirectionala. Media conversationala, intai telegraful, apoi telefonul. Incet, conversatii scrise, apoi conversatii voce in timp real. Apoi, acum 150 ani a fost o revolutie in alte forme de inregistrare decat tiparul. Intai fotografia, apoi sunetul inregistrat, apoi filmele, toate codate pe suport fizic. Si in fine, acum aproape 100 de ani, utilizarea spectrului electromagnetic ca sa trimitem sunet si imagine prin aer, radioul si televiziunea. Acesta este peisajul mediatic pe care il cunoastem in secolul 20. Asta este cu ce o parte din noi ua crescut si s-au obisnuit.
But there is a curious asymmetry here. The media that is good at creating conversations is no good at creating groups. And the media that's good at creating groups is no good at creating conversations. If you want to have a conversation in this world, you have it with one other person. If you want to address a group, you get the same message and you give it to everybody in the group, whether you're doing that with a broadcasting tower or a printing press. That was the media landscape as we had it in the twentieth century.
Dar aici este o asimetrie curioasa. Media care este buna in a crea conversatii nu e buna in a crea grupuri. Si cea care e buna in a crea grupuri nu e buna in a crea conversatii. Daca vrei sa ai o conversatie in lumea asta, trebuie sa o ai cu doar o alta persoana. Daca vrei sa te adresezi unui grup, iei acelasi mesaj si il dai tuturor din grup. Indiferent cum o faci, dintr-un turn de transmisiuni sau prin presa tiparita. Asta era peisajul mediatic asa cum l-am avut in sec 20.
And this is what changed. This thing that looks like a peacock hit a windscreen is Bill Cheswick's map of the Internet. He traces the edges of the individual networks and then color codes them. The Internet is the first medium in history that has native support for groups and conversation at the same time. Whereas the phone gave us the one-to-one pattern, and television, radio, magazines, books, gave us the one-to-many pattern, the Internet gives us the many-to-many pattern. For the first time, media is natively good at supporting these kinds of conversations. That's one of the big changes.
Si asta este ce s-a schimbat. Si chestia asta care arata ca un paun care s-a lovit de un ecran este harta internetului a lui Bill Cheswick's El traseaza marginile retelelor individuale si le codeaza in culori. Internetul este primul mediu din istorie care are un suport nativ pentru grupuri si conversatii in acelasi timp. Acolo unde telefonul ne-a dat tiparul "de la unu la unu" si televiziunea, radioul, revistele, cartile ne-au dat tiparul "de la unu la mai multi". Internetul ne da tiparul " de la multi la multi". Pentru prima oara media este buna de la inceput sa sprijine conversatiile de tipul acesta. Aste este una dintre marile schimbari.
The second big change is that, as all media gets digitized, the Internet also becomes the mode of carriage for all other media, meaning that phone calls migrate to the Internet, magazines migrate to the Internet, movies migrate to the Internet. And that means that every medium is right next door to every other medium. Put another way, media is increasingly less just a source of information, and it is increasingly more a site of coordination, because groups that see or hear or watch or listen to something can now gather around and talk to each other as well.
A doua mare schimbare este ca toata media se digitalizeaza, internetul devine un mod de transport pentru toata cealalta media. Insemnand ca telefonia migreaza pe internet. Revistele la fel. Filmele se muta pe internet. Asta inseamna ca fiecare medium este in imediata apropiere a oricarui altui mediu. Sa zicem altfel, media este din ce in ce mai putin doar o sursa de informatii si este din ce in ce mai mult un loc de coordonare. Pentru ca grupurile care vad, aud, observa sau asculta ceva se pot aduna si si vorbi unii cu altii in acelasi fel.
And the third big change is that members of the former audience, as Dan Gilmore calls them, can now also be producers and not consumers. Every time a new consumer joins this media landscape a new producer joins as well, because the same equipment -- phones, computers -- let you consume and produce. It's as if, when you bought a book, they threw in the printing press for free; it's like you had a phone that could turn into a radio if you pressed the right buttons. That is a huge change in the media landscape we're used to. And it's not just Internet or no Internet. We've had the Internet in its public form for almost 20 years now, and it's still changing as the media becomes more social. It's still changing patterns even among groups who know how to deal with the Internet well.
Si a treia mare schimbare este ca membrii care formeaza audienta, asa cum Dan Gilmore ii numeste, pot deveni producatori nu doar consumatori. De cate ori un consumator nou se alatura peisajului mediatic un nou producator se alatura de asemenea. Pentru ca acelasi echipament, telefon, computer, te lasa sa consumi si sa si produci. E ca si cum, atunci cand cumperi o carte, primesti si o tiparnita gratis. Sau ca si cum telefonul tau se transforma in radio cand apesi butoanele care trebuie. Este o schimbare imensa in peisajul mediatic cu care eram obisnuiti. Si nu este doar internet, sau fara internet deloc. Am avut internet, in forma sa publica de aproape 20 ani. Si inca se transforma asa cum media devine mai sociala. Inca isi schimba tiparele chiar printre grupurile care stiu sa foloseasca internetul bine.
Second story. Last May, China in the Sichuan province had a terrible earthquake, 7.9 magnitude, massive destruction in a wide area, as the Richter Scale has it. And the earthquake was reported as it was happening. People were texting from their phones. They were taking photos of buildings. They were taking videos of buildings shaking. They were uploading it to QQ, China's largest Internet service. They were Twittering it. And so as the quake was happening the news was reported. And because of the social connections, Chinese students coming elsewhere, and going to school, or businesses in the rest of the world opening offices in China -- there were people listening all over the world, hearing this news. The BBC got their first wind of the Chinese quake from Twitter. Twitter announced the existence of the quake several minutes before the US Geological Survey had anything up online for anybody to read. The last time China had a quake of that magnitude it took them three months to admit that it had happened.
A doua poveste, in luna mai trecuta, in China, provincia Sichuan a avut loc un teribil cutremur de 7.9 grade magnitudine distrugeri masive pe arii extinse, asa cum scala Richter spune. Cutremurul s-a "comunicat" in timp ce se producea. Oamenii trimiteau SMS de pe telefoane, luau poze ale cladirilor. Filmau cladirile tremurand. Le-au incarcat in QQ, cel mai mare serviciu internet din China. L-au transmis pe Twitter. Asa ca in timp ce se producea cutremurul stirile erau transmise Si din cauza conexiunilor sociale Studentii chinezi de pe cine stie unde, sau mergand spre scoli sau afaceri din restul lumii care deschideau birouri in China Omenii de peste tot, ascultau stirile. BBC a aflat prima informatie despre cutremur de pe Twitter. Twitter a anuntat existenta cutremurului cateva minute inainte ca serviciul de monitorizare geologica din SUA sa aibe ceva online ca lumea sa afle. Ultima oara cand China a avut un cutremur de magnitudinea asta i-a luat 3 luni sa admita ca s-a intamplat!
(Laughter)
(rasete)
Now they might have liked to have done that here, rather than seeing these pictures go up online. But they weren't given that choice, because their own citizens beat them to the punch. Even the government learned of the earthquake from their own citizens, rather than from the Xinhua News Agency. And this stuff rippled like wildfire. For a while there the top 10 most clicked links on Twitter, the global short messaging service -- nine of the top 10 links were about the quake. People collating information, pointing people to news sources, pointing people to the US geological survey. The 10th one was kittens on a treadmill, but that's the Internet for you.
Acum poate ca le-ar fi placut sa faca asta si aici, decat sa vada imaginile online. Dar nu au avut nici o sansa. Pentru ca cetatenii lor i-au batut la eficienta. Chiar si guvernul a aflat de cutremur de la cetatenii ei decat de la agentia de presa Xinhua. Si chestia asta s-a raspandit ca un foc salbatic. Pentru o vreme top 10 cele mai frecvente click-uri pe Twitter serviciul global de mesaje scurte, noua dintre ele erau despre cutremur. Omenii legau informatiile, indreptand oamenii catre sursele de informatii, indreaptand oamenii catre serviciul american de monitorizare geologica. A zecea stire a fost despre pisoi pe roata, dar asta inseamna internetul..
(Laughter)
(rasete)
But nine of the 10 in those first hours. And within half a day donation sites were up, and donations were pouring in from all around the world. This was an incredible, coordinated global response. And the Chinese then, in one of their periods of media openness, decided that they were going to let it go, that they were going to let this citizen reporting fly. And then this happened. People began to figure out, in the Sichuan Provence, that the reason so many school buildings had collapsed -- because tragically the earthquake happened during a school day -- the reason so many school buildings collapsed is that corrupt officials had taken bribes to allow those building to be built to less than code. And so they started, the citizen journalists started
Dar 9 din 10 in acele prime ore, si in jumatate de zi, situri pentru donatii erau gata. Si donatiile curgeau din toata lumea. A fost un raspuns global, coordonat, incredibil. Si atunci chinezii, intr-una din perioadele lor de deschidere mediatica au decis ca e cazul sa-i dea drumul. Ca e cazul sa-i lase pe cetatenii sai sa raporteze liber. Si asta s-a intamplat. Oamenii au inceput sa-si dea seama in provincia Sichuan, ca motivul pentru care atatea scoli s-au prabusit, pentru ca din pacate cutremurul a lovit in timpul unei zile de scoala, motivul pentru care scolile s-au prabusit a fost ca oficiali corupti au luat mita si au permis ca acele cladiri sa fie construite sub standard. Asa ca ei, jurnalistii cetateni au inceput
reporting that as well. And there was an incredible picture. You may have seen in on the front page of the New York Times. A local official literally prostrated himself in the street, in front of these protesters, in order to get them to go away. Essentially to say, "We will do anything to placate you, just please stop protesting in public."
sa raporteze si asta. Si a fost o imagine incredibila. Poate ca ati vazut in prima pagina in ziarul New York Times un oficial local, pur si simplu s-a culcat in strada, in fata acelor protestatari. In incercarea de a-i dispersa. A zis in esenta " Vom face orice sa va inbunam, doar nu mai protestati in public".
But these are people who have been radicalized, because, thanks to the one child policy, they have lost everyone in their next generation. Someone who has seen the death of a single child now has nothing to lose. And so the protest kept going. And finally the Chinese cracked down. That was enough of citizen media. And so they began to arrest the protesters. They began to shut down the media that the protests were happening on.
Dar acesti oameni sunt oameni care au fost deja radicalizati. Pentru ca multumita politicii cu dreptul la un singur copil in familie, si-au pierdut o generatie intreaga. Cine a vazut moartea unui singur copil acum nu mai are nimic de pierdut. Asa ca protestele au continuat. Si in final, chinezii au cedat. Fusese destula media cetateneasca. Asa ca au inceput sa aresteze protestatarii. Au inceput sa inchida media in care protestatarii se exprimau.
China is probably the most successful manager of Internet censorship in the world, using something that is widely described as the Great Firewall of China. And the Great Firewall of China is a set of observation points that assume that media is produced by professionals, it mostly comes in from the outside world, it comes in relatively sparse chunks, and it comes in relatively slowly. And because of those four characteristics they are able to filter it as it comes into the country. But like the Maginot Line, the great firewall of China was facing in the wrong direction for this challenge, because not one of those four things was true in this environment. The media was produced locally. It was produced by amateurs. It was produced quickly. And it was produced at such an incredible abundance that there was no way to filter it as it appeared. And so now the Chinese government, who for a dozen years, has quite successfully filtered the web, is now in the position of having to decide whether to allow or shut down entire services, because the transformation to amateur media is so enormous that they can't deal with it any other way.
China este probabil cel mai de succes manager al cenzurii pe internet, in lume, folosind ceea ce este descris ca marele firewall al Chinei. Si Marele firewall al Chinei este un set de puncte de observatie care presupune ca media este produsa de profesionisti, ca vine din afara, ca vine in bucati relativ disparate, si relativ incet. Si din cauza acestor 4 caracteristici ei pot sa filtreze ce intra in tara. Dar, ca linia Maginot marele firewall al Chinei era intr-o directie gresita pentru incercarea asta. Pentru ca niciunul din cele 4 lucruri nu era adevarat in acest mediu. Media era produsa local. Era produsa de amatori. Era produsa rapid. Si era produsa in asemenea abundenta incat nu ai cum sa filtrezi la ritmul in care apare. Asa ca acum, guvernul chinez, care de douazeci de ani, filtra cu succes internetul, era acum in pozitia de a trebui sa decida fie sa permita sau sa inchida tot serviciul. Pentru ca transformarea in media amatorilor era asa de mare, incat nu puteau sa o rezolve altfel.
And in fact that is happening this week. On the 20th anniversary of Tiananmen they just, two days ago, announced that they were simply shutting down access to Twitter, because there was no way to filter it other than that. They had to turn the spigot entirely off. Now these changes don't just affect people who want to censor messages. They also affect people who want to send messages,
De fapt, asta s-a intamplat saptamana asta. La a 20-a aniversare a evenimentului de la Tiananmen acum 2 zile au anuntat ca vor inchide pur si simplu accesul la Twitter. Pentru ca nu era nici o sansa sa filtreze, alta decat asta. Asa ca a trebuit sa inchida cepul cu totul. Acum aceste schimbari nu afectau doar oamenii care vroiau sa cenzureze mesajele. Afecta de asemenea si oamenii care vroiau sa trimita mesaje.
because this is really a transformation of the ecosystem as a whole, not just a particular strategy. The classic media problem, from the 20th century is, how does an organization have a message that they want to get out to a group of people distributed at the edges of a network. And here is the twentieth century answer. Bundle up the message. Send the same message to everybody. National message. Targeted individuals. Relatively sparse number of producers. Very expensive to do, so there is not a lot of competition. This is how you reach people. All of that is over.
Pentru ca asta e chiar o transformare a ecosistemului cu totul Nu doar o strategie particulara. Asa ca problema clasica in media, din secolul 20 este cum sa aibe o organizatie un mesaj pe care sa-l transmita catre un grup de oameni aflati la marginile retelei. Si aici a venit raspunsul secolului 20. Strange mesajul. Trimite mesajul la toata lumea. Mesaj national. Targetat individual. Un numar relativ mic de producatori. Foarte costisitor de facut. Asa ca nu e deloc competitie. Cam asa te poti imbogati. Toate astea s-au sfarsit.
We are increasingly in a landscape where media is global, social, ubiquitous and cheap. Now most organizations that are trying to send messages to the outside world, to the distributed collection of the audience, are now used to this change. The audience can talk back. And that's a little freaky. But you can get used to it after a while, as people do.
Suntem din ce in ce mai mult intr-un peisaj in care media este globala, sociala, prezenta peste tot si ieftina. Acum cele mai multe organizatii care incearca sa trimita un mesaj catre lumea larga, catre o colectie de audiente sunt obisnuite cu aceasta schimbare. Audienta poate sa raspunda. E putin inspaimantator. Dar te obisnuiesti dupa o vreme, asa cum se obisnuieste toata lumea.
But that's not the really crazy change that we're living in the middle of. The really crazy change is here: it's the fact that they are no longer disconnected from each other, the fact that former consumers are now producers, the fact that the audience can talk directly to one another; because there is a lot more amateurs than professionals, and because the size of the network, the complexity of the network is actually the square of the number of participants, meaning that the network, when it grows large, grows very, very large.
Dar nu e chiar o schimbare nebuna in care traim. Nebunia este aici. Este faptul ca nu mai sunt deconectati unul de altul. Este faptul ca acum fostii consumatori sunt producatori. Este faptul ca audienta poate sa vorbeasca una cu alta. Pentru ca sunt mult mai multi amatori decat profesionisti. si pentru ca marimea retelei si complexitatea retelei este de fapt patratul numarului de participanti. Inseamna ca reteaua, cand creste, creste foarte foarte mult.
As recently at last decade, most of the media that was available for public consumption was produced by professionals. Those days are over, never to return. It is the green lines now, that are the source of the free content, which brings me to my last story. We saw some of the most imaginative use of social media during the Obama campaign.
In ultima decada, cea mai multa media era disponibila pentru consum public produsa de profesionisti. S-au cam dus zilele acelea si nu se vor mai intoarce niciodata. Acum e vremea liniilor verzi (libere), care sunt sursa continutului liber. O idee care ma duce la ultima mea poveste. Am vazut cea mai imaginativa utilizare a social media in timpul campaniei Obama.
And I don't mean most imaginative use in politics -- I mean most imaginative use ever. And one of the things Obama did, was they famously, the Obama campaign did, was they famously put up MyBarackObama.com, myBO.com And millions of citizens rushed in to participate, and to try and figure out how to help. An incredible conversation sprung up there. And then, this time last year, Obama announced that he was going to change his vote on FISA, The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He had said, in January, that he would not sign a bill that granted telecom immunity for possibly warrantless spying on American persons. By the summer, in the middle of the general campaign, He said, "I've thought about the issue more. I've changed my mind. I'm going to vote for this bill." And many of his own supporters on his own site went very publicly berserk.
Si nu ma gandesc la imaginatie in politica. Vreau sa zic cea mai imaginativa din toate timpurile. Si unul din lucrurile pe care Obama le-a facut, pe care campania lui Obama le-a facut, este ca au pus pe internet cu valva my.BarakObama.com, Si milioane de cetateni s-au grabit sa participe, si sa se gandeasca cum sa ajute. Un izvor incredibil de conversatii a inceput aici. Si atunci, pe vremea asta anul trecut, Obama a anuntat ca o sa-is schimbe votul in chestiunea FISA, "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" - actul de monitorizare inteligenta straina. A zis in ianuarie, ca nu va semna o nota care sa garanteze imunitate telecom pentru spionaj fara nici opreliste a persoanelor americane. Pana in vara, in mijlocul campaniei generale, a zis:" M-am mai gandit la aceasta chestiune. Mi-am schimbat opinia" Am sa votez pentru aceasta nota" Si multi dintre suporterii lui pe siteul sau au reactionat public frenetic.
It was Senator Obama when they created it. They changed the name later. "Please get FISA right." Within days of this group being created it was the fastest growing group on myBO.com; within weeks of its being created it was the largest group. Obama had to issue a press release. He had to issue a reply. And he said essentially, "I have considered the issue. I understand where you are coming from. But having considered it all, I'm still going to vote the way I'm going to vote. But I wanted to reach out to you and say, I understand that you disagree with me, and I'm going to take my lumps on this one."
Era senatorul Obama cand l-au creat. I-au schimbat numele mai tarziu. Te rugam voteaza FISA cum trebuie. In cateva zile grupul abia creat era grupul cu cea mai mare crestere de pe siteul myBO.com In cateva saptamani a devenit cel mai mare grup. Obama a fost nevoit sa dea un comunicat de presa. Trebuia sa raspunda. Si ce-a zis in esenta: " Am luat in calcul ceea ce spuneti. Inteleg punctul vostru de vedere. Dar cu toate acestea, am sa votez asa cum am sa votez. Dar am vrut sa ies in public si sa va spun, ca inteleg ca nu sunteti de acord cu mine, si am sa-mi asum acest risc."
This didn't please anybody. But then a funny thing happened in the conversation. People in that group realized that Obama had never shut them down. Nobody in the Obama campaign had ever tried to hide the group or make it harder to join, to deny its existence, to delete it, to take to off the site. They had understood that their role with myBO.com was to convene their supporters but not to control their supporters.
Chestia asta nu a satisfacut pe nimeni. Dar ceva s-a intamplat in conversatie. Omenii din grup au realizat ca Obama nu i-a oprit niciodata sa vorbeasca. Nimeni din campania Obama nu incercase vreodata sa ascunda grupul sau sa-l faca greu de intrat, sa-i nege existenta, sa-l stearga, sa-l dea jos de pe site. Ei au inteles ca rolul lor cu myBO.com era sa se reuneasca cu suporterii lor dar nu sa-i controleze.
And that is the kind of discipline that it takes to make really mature use of this media. Media, the media landscape that we knew, as familiar as it was, as easy conceptually as it was to deal with the idea that professionals broadcast messages to amateurs, is increasingly slipping away. In a world where media is global, social, ubiquitous and cheap, in a world of media where the former audience are now increasingly full participants, in that world, media is less and less often about crafting a single message to be consumed by individuals. It is more and more often a way of creating an environment for convening and supporting groups.
Si asta este disciplina de care avem nevoie pentru a utiliza in mod matur acest tip de media. Media, peisajul de media pe care il stiam atat de familiar,pe cat de usor conceptual a fost sa te impaci cu idea ca profesionistii transmit mesaje amatorilor, se indeparteaza din ce in ce mai mult. Intr-o lume in care media este globala, sociala, omniprezenta si ieftina, intr-o lume in care fosta audienta este din ce in ce mai participativa, in lumea asta, media este din ce in ce mai rar vorba despre a construi un singur mesaj pentru consumul individual. E din ce in ce mai des o cale de a crea un mediu de convocare si sprijin de grupuri.
And the choice we face, I mean anybody who has a message they want to have heard anywhere in the world, isn't whether or not that is the media environment we want to operate in. That's the media environment we've got. The question we all face now is, "How can we make best use of this media? Even though it means changing the way we've always done it." Thank you very much.
Alegerea pe care o avem in fata, adica oricine are un mesaj pe care vrea sa-l faca auzit oriunde in lume nu depinde de faptul ca este sau nu mediul de media in care vrem sa operam. Acesta este mediul de media pe care il avem. Intrebarea pe care toti ar trebui sa o punem este: Cum putem folosi cel mai bine aceasta media? Chiar daca insemna sa schimbam modul in care am facut-o pana acum" Multumesc foarte mult.
(Applause)
aplauze