Advice for humans who wish to govern

image

I’d like to offer some advice if you want to get elected, or you’re in the fortunate position of wanting to stay elected. Maybe you’re a career politician, or you’d like to run for office for the first time. Perhaps you live in a democracy, able to vote for your government, or maybe you don’t, and you’re wondering why not. Either way, I offer some perspective, a different way of looking at the problem of government, that I encourage you to consider.

At the Academy of the Impossible I operated the Campaign School, which invited successful politicians, campaigners, strategists, and pollsters, to share their knowledge and wisdom about electoral politics. While the focus was primarily directed toward the needs of people running for office for the first time, there was valuable knowledge for anyone interested in democratic processes.

A Crisis of Legitimacy

Specifically one of the recurring themes we tried to address, was the crisis of legitimacy in contemporary democratic politics. Governments, political parties, and especially politicians are generally regarded with cynicism and disdain. People decreasingly trust their elected leaders, and the institutions they are associated with.

It is not so much an issue of apathy, but of relevance, contact, and broader issues of representation in an era of direct interaction. Even our notions of community have radically transformed, from geographically specific constructs, to fluid and flexible configurations based on interests, ethnography, demography, or whatever cool meme or trend is playing out.

Given that our configuration of community has changed, so too has our conception of what a representative is, and what that representative should be. A general consensus among Campaign School participants was that electoral reform was necessary and overdue. Our notions of representation have changed, and existing systems have not kept up at all.

However adjacent to the issue of electoral reform, an interesting insight around relevance emerges.

Specifically I’m observing that ideology is no longer relevant to contemporary electoral democracy. We are no longer electing humans to run a government, we are electing humans to operate a machine. A growing, and rather complex machine, driven by data, and connected to a global machine, whether global village, or global market.

Therefore if you’re a politician driven by ideas, organized with comrades around an ideology, I question whether you will find success. Circumstances may still provide opportunities to share your ideology on the stage, but will you be able to deploy and carry out your ideas? We can see this happening today in Greece, as a government elected on a specific ideological platform is compelled to bend to the needs of the larger regional and global machine.

Algorithms replace Ideology

This is why I argue that the era of ideology has been replaced by the era of algorithms. Where the twentieth century was all about ideas, the twenty first century is all about code, and in particular, the algorithm.

We don’t seem to have the time for ideas when living in the era of complex systems fuelled by massive databases and surveillance streams. Rather we just react to the flows. We respond to the trending topics and whatever flares up in front of us.

Ideology is about beliefs, whereas algorithms are about methods. Ideology requires a grand vision, whereas algorithms require applied practice.

Algorithms are how we process the firehose of information. How we process living in an era of information overload. Without exaggeration we depend upon algorithms to process and describe our reality. We’re relying less and less upon ideas and imagination, but instead upon digitally constructed realities that claim an authority we’re not (yet) able to argue with.

For an ideologue, the end justifies the means. For an algorithm, the process is the purpose, there is no end. The algorithm focuses on the process, whereas ideology focuses on that end. Perhaps there’s a warning here for democracy, as the algorithmic government, devoid of any constraints or controls, governs without an end.

In my lifetime this shift from ideology to algorithm has been simultaneously subtle, and pronounced. While we cling to the language and appearances of the old regime, the new regime has rapidly emerged and replaced the old.

The cold war became the cyber war. Nuclear Armageddon has been replaced by the singularity, skynet, and the robot apocalypse. Hackers are terrorists, terrorists are hackers, and we’re all freedom fighters in the battles for our mind.

What is your Algorithm?

Therefore, to the aspiring or successful politician, I ask you, what is your algorithm? What method do you bring to the table to manage the machines? Or at least to help us understand their commands?

The politics of the twentieth century were about grand ideas. Perhaps the politics of the twenty first century needs to be about small but effective solutions? Better methods instead of steadfast beliefs? Better practices instead of rigid visions?

As a politician, think about coming to the party with a practice, a method, and solutions for the problems that plague society. People don’t want to trust you, but they may give you the chance to help them to try and fix stuff.

To be clear I’m not suggesting algorithms are better than ideologies. I’m just observing a clear shift from one to the other.

For example I don’t see the Chinese Communist Party wanting to relinquish control of the Chinese Government anytime soon. Yet are they really communist or even ideological? Rather they act as an example of a regime that focuses on algorithms instead of ideology. They could expand their political process to allow greater elections and participation, not according to ideology, but based on algorithms. This would allow for good governance while also enabling the stability that is so coveted by centuries of Chinese politicians.

An Ideology for Algorithms?

What about embedding ideology into an algorithm? That’s certainly possible, though an example of new media using old media as its content.

Emit Snake-Beings argues something similar in their paper “From Ideology to Algorithm: the Opaque Politics of the Internet”. Specifically that algorithm has replaced ideology as a method of control, the former absorbing the latter, with a focus on the role of media. The power of the mainstream media being replaced by the power of search engines and social media.

Astrid Mager also argues that search engines have ideology. That capitalism has been baked into search engines, which certainly suggests algorithms could be programed with other ideologies? What would a communist, or anarchist search engine involve?

Manuel Schaeffer argues that ideology has ended in the face of big data:

“the interconnectedness of social, economic and political problems does not allow politicians to force their agenda upon reality anymore.”

Schaeffer and I both argue that this is tied to the erosion of trust and confidence in elected politicians, however he and I disagree on whether “the era of individual leaders with big visions is likely to be over.”

We Still Need Vision and Narrative

This is where you come in. I’m suggesting that you need to combine vision with your algorithm. You’ll need to develop some analytics that give you and your electorate an empirical view of reality and using that engine to offer vision and narrative. These are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are dependent upon each other.

Left to their own devices, the technocrats will do away with politicians, in the same manner that ideology is being discarded or made irrelevant. This is why the politician needs to evolve, needs to develop new skills, in particular combine algorithmic literacy with old school storytelling. The leaders we need are the ones who can make sense of our world, so together we might be in a position to do something about it.

We should not give up trying to make the world better, or to imagine a different world altogether. Rather you have to articulate the means and not the end. The plan and the policies rather than the vision and the promises.

It’s not where you’re going, it’s how you’re able to get us there.

As for myself, I require your help with the algorithms that govern attention. If my words have helped your understanding or provided any enjoyment please help me by sharing them with others. Amplify the article via your networks triggering certain algorithms to carry these words even further.

image

Advice for struggling media executives

image

I recently made waves while commenting on the new Apple News app that will be installed by default on the upcoming iOS9 release. In particular, I argued that the management of the Canadian news industry had dropped the ball, and as a result some of the most storied and respected brands in the Canadian media landscape would be done.

Specifically I cited both the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star as being destined to the dustbin of history due to their expensive gamble and reliance on new tablet editions. I framed the problem as one of monopoly, given that Apple is in a privileged position as both the manufacturer of the software and of the hardware.

What do you do if you’re a city or national brand from a small market and the monopoly provider enters your marketplace and engages in anticompetitive behaviour? I’m not suggesting that these companies curl up and call it quits, however I do think that proceeding as if all is normal is equally foolish and will result in disaster.

Therefore I offer the mythical media executive some advice which I hope will assist in the framing and understanding of the problem at hand.

Chase the Future, Not the Past

“The future is already here. It’s just unevenly distributed.” – William Gibson

The first and perhaps largest mistake that modern media executives make is to chase the past. Marshall McLuhan offers a fantastic metaphor in the form of the rearview mirror effect. In an accelerating culture what we perceive as the future is really the present, and what we perceive as the present is really the past.

How often have you heard someone proclaim that “mobile or digital are the future!” A derivative of this sentiment might be, “tablets are the future!” The irony of course is that none of these are the future, instead they’re the present. We don’t know what the future media may manifest as (I suggest shared hallucinations as one option), but we should not make the mistake of assuming that what we have now will remain the same. If there’s anything we can predict, it is that things will change, maybe all things will change, and the dynamism of an internet society will continue.

While it is entirely unreasonable for a media or news organization to speculate on what future media might be, it is entirely reasonable for them to either make that media happen, or at least be in a position to harness and leverage whatever does happen.

Therefore a news or media organization should chase the future, rather than chase the past. They should employ the same investigatory methods that are used to create content, to enable their business plans and models to evolve.

If possible, even go further, and invest in the future, so that all others chase you. This is what the technology industry has done, look at the likes of Apple or Google, and why they are now in a position to seduce, threaten, and dominate other industries. How a media organization could invest in the future so as to lead others, is another post, but I believe far more accessible and affordable than almost all other industries.

Chase the future, or invest in the future so you’re the one who is chased.

“There were coherent predictions of the trouble the Internet would cause for the news industry going back to the late 1980s and despite frequent invocations of "Internet time” the pace of change has been glacial; dated from 1994 (the first year of the broadly commercial web) management has had 75 consecutive quarters to adapt.“
From Post Industrial Journalism: Adapting to the Present

Relationships not Platforms

One of the biggest mistakes made as a result of chasing the past, is to focus on platforms, rather than relationships. News and media organizations chase platforms at the expense of their relationships with advertisers, subscribers, and readers.

Platforms can be expensive, have specific constraints, and distract from the real reason news and media organizations exist: their relationships. Whether they be the relationships with subscribers, the relationships with advertisers, or the general relationship with the readership, these rarely comprise the focus, but instead fall second to the platform.

Platforms bring with them a kind of conformity, a sense that you’re keeping up with the times, and following the rest of the industry to the next era. Perhaps platforms are justified as being where the audience is, or where the advertisers want to be, however they reverse the required emphasis on the market, instead drawing attention to someone else’s market.

The web has been around for over 20 years, and yet how many news organizations have a strong web platform? Facebook, Google, Apple, even Twitter offer themselves as platforms for news and media, yet for whose benefit?

"Our social media platforms are embedded with values that shape our perspectives and our behaviors. If we live in the social media landscape without an awareness of what it really wants from us, no one is really being empowered at all.” – Douglas Rushkoff

An obvious symptom or consequence of focusing on the platform at the expense of relationships are the sad state of online comments on news sites. The disdain and disrespect shown towards readers and the ability to comment has allowed a toxic culture to fester and grow. The phrase “don’t read the comments” has become a cliche, that on the one hand, warns the reader or author not to tread in the deeper part of the news site, and on the other hand, indicates the dysfunction that exists in that relationship.

Relationships can and should transcend platforms. A healthy relationship with subscribers means they will follow you anywhere. A strong relationship with advertisers means they will help facilitate the relationship with subscribers. A generous relationship with readers gives them the incentive and means by which to share content across all platforms.

It seems incredibly ironic that the subscribers of many media organizations are the most affluent and educated among society, and yet the people participating on media organizations platforms tend to be the most annoying and obnoxious. If only more attention had been placed on fostering healthy relationships instead of pushing platforms that seem to accomplish the opposite.

Perhaps the misplaced focus arises from the failure to translate the intimate relationship many readers had with their daily newspaper(s). When looking at the affection, proximity, and portability that newspapers provided their readers, it would be understandable why some might see that paper as a platform, and miss the larger relationship that existed between the page and the reader, but more importantly between the newspaper as an entity and the subscriber as an integral part of the larger body.

Experiences and Events

In an era of information overload, there is a growing emphasis and value placed on experiences and events. Increasingly people are willing to pay for an experience rather than an artifact. They’ll pay money to escape a room with friends, but won’t bother paying for a movie or album they can download for free. The concert or music festival costs a lot of money, but it provides an experience that offers memories that can last a lifetime.

In the pursuit of platforms, news and media organizations missed the opportunity to create experiences and events for their audiences. Some dabbled with conferences and events led by speakers, however few actually explored the kind of unique experiences that they might offer their subscribers (and by extension advertisers). These are not just extensions of the brand, or extensions of content that has already been produced, rather the kind of experiences that bring together subscribers and advertisers. The kind of experiences that people will pay a premium for.

Jaymz Bee at Jazz FM in Toronto has done this with his Jazz Safaris. They demonstrate the real opportunity to create new experiences, that offer both new sources of revenue, as well as new reasons for people to subscribe and expand their relationship.

The rituals by which we consume, experience, and engage with media are also important to understand, translate, or create entirely new ones for our new modes of media interaction. Going back to the newspaper, think of the daily and weekly rituals people would enact with their papers. The weekend paper being a heightened ceremony of leisure, intellect, discussion, games (crossword puzzles), and comics.

These rituals reflect both the intimacy and repeatability of media. In particular the intimacy is a result of how we experience media, using our senses, in combination with our minds, imagination, and shared lives, to understand what message the media is offering. In focusing on the platform at the expense of the relationship we are disrespecting and discouraging this intimacy. Fostering a culture and practice of experiences and events helps reestablish and refocus the role of intimacy (and repeatability) in media.

We are of course developing entirely new rituals to replace many of the ones that have disappeared, but that is another post for another day. Specifically I’m suggesting that events and experiences are way to find out, develop, and apply what those are for your brand or network.

Advertising That Is Welcome And Wanted

Here’s a wild idea: what about advertising that is both welcome, and wanted by the readership? The business model of news and media is to attract and maintain an audience, that you can deliver to advertisers. However in an era of ad blocking, advertising needs to on the terms of the reader, and not the publisher, assuming that advertising is to be effective and profitable.

While the entertainment value of advertising has increased, the desire on the part of the audience to be exposed to advertising has not. An emphasis on relationship building, both with the subscriber, and the advertiser, could create a new kind of advertising product that serves the interests of all involved.

As advertising and editorial combine to form advertorial (and product placement) there needs to be greater transparency, as well as greater agency, when it comes to what kind of advertising that subscribers and readers desire. There’s no reason why the publisher cannot facilitate a closer and more responsive relationship between the readers and advertisers.

Mentorship and Education

News and media organizations are in the business of pedagogy, even if they are reluctant to embrace this role. There is an inherent educational capacity to publishing, news, and media. Informing readers about the world, and helping them understand their place in it is an ongoing educational process. There’s considerable value in providing this education, and there is a lost opportunity when news organizations fail to embrace this role and the pedagogic authority that comes with it.

While this absolutely applies to readers and the general public, it is even more applicable when it comes to young journalists and aspiring media makers. A generation of journalists are growing up in an industry that provides neither solid employment nor solid opportunities. It’s as if we’re asking young journalists and media makers to wait until their elders figure out a new business model, rather than creating an educational and exploratory process in which all work together to create this new business model.

Mentorship, and in particular, reverse mentorship, provides an excellent opportunity to nurture a new generation, while also helping the industry as a whole transform and evolve. Reverse mentorship is the acknowledgement that all involved, young and old, have valuable knowledge and insights to share.

Yet that mentorship does not have to be limited to the narrow interests of journalists, but can apply to the world at large. Social and digital media means that everyone is a publisher, and yet not everyone understands the responsibilities that come with publishing. Facilitating citizen journalism is a tremendous business opportunity neglected by news organizations if not regarded with disdain.

Traditional educational institutions have recognized the necessity and utility of continuing education, not to mention the revenue. Ironically many veterans of the news and media industry are enjoying their second career at various post-secondary institutions, when they could have been providing that service as part of their traditional organizations.

Accessible and Diverse

One of the ways in which mainstream media organizations have lost credibility over the past couple of decades is due to their inaccessibility and lack of diversity. This has been a huge contrast with a mediasphere that is increasingly diverse and almost universally accessible. Just about anyone can publish, and reach a potential global audience, and yet many news and media organizations still treat publishing as an elite endeavour available only to the few.

There’s little reason, other than a lack of courage, to not open up the mainstream media organizations to a much wider, and more diverse set of voices. The Huffington Post has pioneered this model, allowing pretty much anyone to publish on their site. While there is still a need or justification to curate and cultivate a relevant set of voices, there’s certainly no need to limit it to the elite group that currently comprise established journalism.

Every major media organization operating in a decently sized marketplace should be actively cultivating and mentoring new and diverse voices. This can be done by opening up publishing opportunities for young (and not so young), aspiring, and willing members of the community. Some news organizations have tried this, but most have not invested the resources or profile to actively cultivate this broader network of contributors.

Pay Attention and Reciprocate

“Nothing is inevitable provided we are prepared to pay attention.” – Marshall McLuhan
image

These are just some obvious ideas that I offer for any curious, courageous, or otherwise capable media executive who is interested in avoiding icebergs. If you have made it this far, whether you’re a media exec or not, do me a solid and share this post with your networks. I’ll notice, remember, and probably reciprocate sometime in the future.