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.
Želel bi spregovoriti o spremenjenem medijskem prostoru in kakšen pomen imajo te spremembe za tiste, ki bi želeli kaj sporočiti ostalemu svetu. Te spremembe v medijskem prostoru bi rad ponazoril preko pripovedi nekaj različnih zgodb.
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.
Lansko leto v novembru so bile predsedniške volitve. Verjetno ste o tem brali v časopisju. V tem času se je pojavila skrb, da je v nekaterih predelih države prišlo do načrtnega oviranja glasovanja. To je privedlo do pobude za snemanje glasovanja. Tako naj bi posamezni državljani fotografirali ali posneli svoja volilna mesta s pomočjo mobilnikov, ki to omogočajo, oprezajoč za kakršnokoli tehniko oviranja glasovanja. Posnetke bi naložili na centralno zbirno mesto, kar bi delovalo kot oblika civilnega nadzora. Ti državljani na volišča ne bi prišli le oddati svoj glas, ampak bi prispevali tudi k zagotavljanju vsesplošne legitimnosti glasovanja.
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.
Ta primer nakazuje, da to zadeva vse nas. V tej zgodbi ni najbolj pomemben tehnični kapital, ampak socialni kapital. Ti pripomočki niso družbeno zanimivi, dokler ne postanejo tehnološko dolgočasni. Komunikacijske tehnologije, ki prežemajo družbo, so tiste, ki jih vsi posamezniki jemljejo za samoumevne in ne tiste, ki so se ravnokar pojavile na tržišču. V času, ko so ti mediji vse bolj družabni, se novosti lahko pojavijo kjerkoli, zato je samoumevno, da te spremembe zadevajo vse nas.
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.
Tako lahko začnemo dojemati medijski prostor kot nekaj, kjer stalno prihaja do novosti. Stalne spremembe povzročajo vidno preoblikovanje medijskega prostora. Obdobje, v katerem sedaj živimo, obdobje, v katerem živi naša generacija, omogoča najvišjo raven izražanja javnih mnenj v človeški zgodovini. To je zelo močna trditev, ki pa jo bom sedaj poskušal utemeljiti.
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.
V zadnjih 500 letih obstajajo samo štiri obdobja, v katerih je prišlo do revolucionarnih sprememb na področju medijev. Prvo obdobje zaznamuje iznajdba tiska. Tiskovna forma, tiskarske barve, cela paleta novosti, ki so omogočile tisk in v drugi polovici 15. stoletja temeljito pretresle Evropo. Pred nekaj stoletji pa so se pojavile novosti v dvosmerni komunikaciji. Mediji pogovora, najprej telegraf in potem še telefon. Tako je počasnejšemu pisnemu sporočanju sledilo govorno sporočanje v realnem času. V tretjem obdobju - pred 150 leti - je prišlo do revolucije na področju shranjevalnih medijev, ki niso tisk. Najprej fotografije, nato zvočni posnetki in potem filmi, shranjeni v fizični obliki. In tako se končno pred 100 leti z uporabo elektromagnetnega spektra zvok in slika preneseta na radio in televizijski zaslon. To je medijski prostor, kot smo ga poznali v 20. stoletju. To so tisti mediji, s katerimi smo odrasli in smo jih navajeni.
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.
Kakorkoli, tukaj se pojavi zanimiva nesomernost. Mediji, ki so primerni za medsebojno komuniciranje, niso najbolj primerni za snovanje skupin. In tisti mediji, ki so primerni za oblikovanje skupin, niso najbolj primerni za medsebojno komuniciranje. Pri medsebojni komunikaciji nagovarjate drugo osebo in ona vas. Ko nekaj sporočate skupini, je sporočilo, ki ga oblikujete, enako za vsakega člana te skupine, ne glede na to ali se pri tem poslužujete oddajnika ali tiska. Takšen je bil medijski prostor v 20. stoletju.
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.
In to je tisto, kar se je spremenilo. To, kar izgleda, kot da bi pav priletel v vetrobransko steklo, je Bill Cheswickov zemljevid svetovnega spleta. Cheswick je zbiral poti posameznih omrežij in jih nato označil z različnimi barvami. Svetovni splet je prvi medij v zgodovini, ki istočasno podpira snovanje skupin in medsebojno komunikacijo. Telefonski pogovor nam mogoča le dialog. Televizija, radio, revije in knjige delujejo po vzorcu "eno proti mnogim", medtem ko internet deluje po vzorcu "mnogo k mnogim". Prvič v zgodovini mediji privzeto podpirajo to vrsto komunikacije. To je ena izmed velikih sprememb.
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.
Druga velika sprememba je, da svetovni splet zaradi digitalizacije večine medijev postaja način prenosa ostalih medijev. Mobilni klici se selijo na svetovni splet. Tudi revije in filmi. In to pomeni, da vsi mediji delujejo tesno drug ob drugem. Povedano drugače, mediji niso več le vir informacij, ampak vse bolj mehanizem koordinacije. Skupine, ki nekaj vidijo ali slišijo, gledajo ali poslušajo, se lahko sedaj zberejo in tudi komunicirajo med seboj.
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.
In tretja velika sprememba je, da so člani prejšnjega občinstva, kot jim pravi Dan Gilmore, lahko sedaj tudi proizvajalci in ne le potrošniki. Vsakič, ko se nov potrošnik pridruži temu medijskemu prostoru, se obenem pridruži tudi nov proizvajalec. Ker enaka oprema, telefoni in računalniki, omogoča trošenje in proizvajanje. Podobno kot bi kupili knjigo, zraven pa bi zastonj dobili še tiskarski stroj. Ali, če bi imeli telefon, ki bi se lahko spremenil v radio, ko bi pritisnili na prave gumbe. To je ogromna sprememba v medijskem prostoru, kot smo ga vajeni. Ampak pri tem ni pomemben le obstoj svetovnega spleta. Internet je javno dostopen že skoraj 20 let in se še vedno spreminja, saj mediji postajajo vse bolj družabni. Tudi med tistimi, ki dobro vedo, kako ga uporabljati, se še vedno spreminja vzorce uporabe.
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.
Sedaj pa k drugi zgodbi. Lanskega maja je provinco Sichuan na Kitajskem stresel močan potres z močjo 7,9 stopnje po Richterjevi lestvici in povzročil obsežno razdejanje. Novice o potresu so prihajale v javnost, ko so se tla na Kitajskem še tresla. Ljudje so pošiljali SMS sporočila in slikali porušene stavbe. Snemali so stavbe, ki so se še vedno tresle in video posnetke prenašali na QQ, popularni vmesnik za pogovarjanje na Kitajskem. Novica se je razširila tudi na Twitterju. Medtem, ko so se tla na Kitajskem še tresla, je novica že pricurljala v javnost. Zahvaljujoč družabnim povezavam, so kitajski študentje na študiju v tujini ali mednarodna podjetja, ki odpirajo pisarne na Kitajskem, ljudje po vsem svetu poslušali in spremljali novice o potresu. BBC je o potresu na Kitajskem dobil informacije na Twitterju. Novica se je prej pojavila na Twitterju kot pa na spletni strani ameriškega geološkega inštituta. Ko je Kitajsko nazadnje doletel potres takšnega obsega, so potrebovali tri mesece, da so priznali, da se je zgodil.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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.
Mogoče so želeli enako narediti tudi v tem primeru, raje kot da so videli te slike na spletu. Toda te možnosti tokrat ni bilo več, saj so jih lastni državljani prehiteli. Še vlada je o potresu izvedela od svojih državljanov in ne od Kitajske državne tiskovne agencije Xinhua. Novica o potresu se je širila hitreje kot ogenj v vetru. Nekaj časa je izmed 10 najbolj obiskanih linkov na Twitterju, globalnemu servisu kratkih sporočil, devet linkov vodilo na spletne strani z novico o potresu. Ljudje so med seboj primerjali informacije, usmerjali druge k različnim virom informacij, usmerjali na ameriški geološki inštitut. Deseti link je vodil do strani z mucki na tekočem traku, a to se pač dogaja na internetu.
(Laughter)
(Smeh)
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
Vendar devet izmed 10 linkov v prvih urah po potresu. V manj kot 12 urah so se pojavile spletne strani za donacije, ki so jih pošiljali ljudje iz celega sveta. To je bil neverjeten in koordiniran svetovni odziv. In tako se je Kitajska, v enem od svojih obdobij medijske svobode, odločila popustiti medijski cenzuri in svojim državljanom omogočiti neovirano poročanje. Kaj se je zgodilo potem? Ljudje v provinci Sichuan so se začeli zavedati, da so se mnoge šolske zgradbe med potresom zgrudile in pod seboj pokopale učence med poukom, zato, ker so pokvarjeni državni uradniki sprejeli visoke podkupnine in omogočili gradnjo potresno nevarnih šolskih stavb. Tako so državljani-novinarji začeli poročati
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."
tudi o tem. In pojavila se je neverjetna fotografija. Mogoče ste jo opazili na prvi strani časopisa New York Times - neki lokalni uradnik je dobesedno pokleknil pred protestnike na ulici, da bi ti prenehali s protestom. V bistvu, da bi povedal: "Vse bomo naredili, da vas pomirimo, samo, prosim, prenehajte protestirati v javnosti."
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.
Toda to so bili ljudje z radikalnimi načeli, saj so zaradi politike enega otroka v potresu izgubili svoje edine otroke. Kdor se mora soočiti s smrtjo edinega otroka, nima po tem veliko izgubiti. Tako so se protesti nadaljevali, a kitajska oblast jih ni več mirno opazovala. Državljanskega novinarstva so imeli dovolj. Začeli so aretirati protestnike in odstranjevati medije s protestno vsebino.
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.
Kitajska je verjetno najbolj uspešna država na svetu, glede uveljavljanja cenzure na svetovnem spletu. Pri tem uporablja t.i. Veliki kitajski požarni zid. Veliki kitajski požarni zid predstavlja niz opazovalnih točk, s predpostavo, da medijske vsebine ustvarjajo profesionalci, da večina te vsebine prihaja iz zunanjega sveta v relativno razpršeni obliki in sorazmeroma počasi. Te štiri lastnosti dopuščajo filtriranje medijskih vsebin, ki prihajajo v državo. Vendar podobno kot je bila Maginotova linija neučinkovita, je bil tudi Veliki kitajski požarni zid napačno postavljen, da bi bil kos temu izzivu. Nobena od prej naštetih lastnosti ni bila resnična v primeru poročanja o potresu. Medijske vsebine so bile proizvedene lokalno, amatersko in v zelo kratkem času. Poleg tega se jih je nakopičilo preveč, da bi jih bilo mogoče pravočasno cenzurirati. Tako se mora sedaj Kitajska vlada, ki je leta in leta precej uspešno nadzorovala internet, odločiti, ali bo dopustila ali zaprla celotne spletne servise. Prehod k amaterski proizvodnji medijskih vsebin je namreč tako silen, da ga ni več mogoče obvladovati.
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,
V resnici se to dogaja ravno ta teden. Ob 20. obletnici pokola na tienanmenskem trgu, le dva dni nazaj, je vlada oznanila, da bo onemogočila dostop do Twitterja. To pa zato, ker vsebine na Twitterju ni mogoče cenzurirati. Morali so povzročiti popoln twitterski mrk. Te spremembe ne zadevajo le ljudi, ki hočejo cenzurirati sporočila, ampak tudi tiste, ki želijo ta sporočila pošiljati.
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.
To pomeni resnično preobrazbo celotnega ekosistema in ne samo ene strategije. Standardni problem, s katerim so se soočali mediji v 20. stoletju, se navezuje na to, kako lahko neka organizacija, ki želi nekaj sporočiti, doseže ciljno skupino ljudi, ki je težje dostopna. In tukaj je odgovor na vprašanje 20. stoletja. Pošlji enako sporočilo celotnemu občinstvu. Ciljna skupina so posamezniki in število proizvajalcev sporočil je relativno majhno. Tako sporočanje je zelo drago in zato proizvajalci nimajo velike konkurence. To je en način kako sporočati, a je ta način danes že opuščen.
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.
Danes postajajo mediji vse bolj globalni, družabni, vsenavzočni in cenovno ugodni. Danes se je večina organizacij, ki želijo nekaj sporočiti zunanjemu svetu, razpršeni skupini občinstva, že prilagodila tem spremembam. Občinstvo se lahko odziva na sporočilo. To je lahko malo srhljivo, toda, ker smo vsi ljudje, se je tega mogoče navaditi.
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.
Ampak to še ni tista prava nora sprememba v času, v katerem živimo. Čisto prava nora sprememba je ta, da so danes organizacije in njihovo občinstvo med seboj povezani. Prejšnji potrošniki so postali proizvajalci. Občinstvo lahko sedaj med seboj direktno komunicira. Amaterskih proizvajalcev medijskih vsebin je veliko več kot profesionalcev. Omrežja postajajo vse bolj obsežna in njihova kompleksnost raste eksponentno glede na število uporabnikov. To pomeni, da ko se omrežje širi, postaja nepredstavljivo obsežno.
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.
Še nedavno, v zadnjem desetletju, so večino javno dostopnih medijskih vsebin ustvarili profesionalci. Ti časi so mimo, vrnitve nazaj ni. Zdaj so zelene črte vir brezplačnih medijskih vsebin. In to dejstvo me vodi k moji zadnji zgodbi. Med predsedniško kampanjo Baracka Obame smo bili priča eni izmed najbolj domiselnih uporab družabnih medijev.
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.
In ne mislim najbolj domiselno uporabo v politiki, ampak najbolj domiselno uporabo kadarkoli. Ena izmed najbolj domiselnih idej pri tej kampanji je bilo oblikovanje spletne strani My Barack Obama pika com, myBO.com. Na milijone ameriških državljanov je obiskalo spletno stran, z namenom osebno prispevati k Obamovi kampanji. Na spletu se je vnel živahen pogovor med obiskovalci. In potem je lani ob tem času Obama naznanil, da bo spremenil svoje glasovanje o FISA, zakonu o nadzoru nad tujimi obveščevalci. V januarju je izjavil, da ne bo podpisal predloga zakona, ki bi podelil telekomu imuniteto za možno prisluškovanje brez naloga ameriškim državljanom. Vse dokler ni poleti, ko je bila njegova predsedniška kampanja na polovici, izjavil: "Še malo sem razmislil o tej zadevi. Premislil sem si. Podprl bom ta predlog." Mnogo njegovih podpornikov je na njegovi spletni strani javno precej nasprotovalo.
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."
Oblikovali so skupino, ki so jo prvotno poimenovali "Senator Obama" in jo kasneje preimenovali v "Prosim, spremeni zakon FISA". V nekaj dneh po oblikovanju skupine je bila najbolj rastoča skupina na myBO.com. V nekaj tednih je postala največja skupina. Obama je moral izdati sporočilo za javnost. Moral je odgovoriti. Dejal je: "Vaš odziv sem vzel v vednost in ga tudi razumem. Ampak glede na vse okoliščine bom podprl ta predlog, tako kot sem že prej nameraval. Vendar sem vam želel sporočiti, da razumem vaše nestrinjanje, a to bom moral vzeti v zakup."
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.
Njegova izjava ni osrečila nikogar. Potem pa se je pripetilo nekaj nepričakovanega. Člani omenjene skupine so se začeli zavedati, da Obama te skupine ni nikoli odstranil s svoje spletne strani. Nihče izmed sodelujočih v Obamovi kampanji ni nikoli poskušal prikriti obstoja te skupine ali otežiti pridruževanja, ali zanikati njenega obstoja, je izbrisati ali odstraniti. Ti so razumeli svojo vlogo pri upravljanju z myBO.com, katere namen je bil privabiti Obamove podpornike, vendar jih ne nadzorovati.
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.
Taka vrsta discipliniranega delovanja je potrebna za zares odraslo uporabo tega medija. Mediji, medijski prostor kot ga poznamo in smo ga bili vajeni, s preprostim konceptom, da profesionalci prinašajo sporočila amaterjem, vse hitreje izginja. V svetu, kjer so mediji globalni, družabni, vsenavzočni in cenovno ugodni, v svetu medijev, kjer prejšnje občinstvo vse bolj postaja aktivni proizvajalec vsebin, v takšnem svetu so mediji vse manj pomembni za oblikovanje posameznega sporočila za posameznika. Mediji danes vse pogosteje pomenijo način oblikovanje okolja za snovanje skupin in njihovo podporo.
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.
Izbira, s katero se soočamo - vsakdo, ki ima kaj sporočiti in bi bil rad slišan kjerkoli po svetu, naj se ne sprašuje ali je to medijski prostor, v katerem želi delovati, kajti to je medijski prostor, ki je na razpolago. Vprašanje, ki si ga sedaj vsi zastavljamo je: "Kako lahko najbolje izkoristimo te medije? Četudi to pomeni spreminjanje naših že ustaljenih načinov uporabe." Najlepša hvala.
(Applause)
(Aplavz)