Re:filtered #8: How we think about information may be too narrow
This is the 8th edition of my monthly newsletter on civic media opportunities in this moment of systemic disruption.
This month, I'll share some updates on the audience research we're working on.
If this newsletter has been forwarded to you, consider subscribing.
In working through questions on how information is consumed in autocratic, tightly-controlled media ecosystems, I just finished reading Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on Information Seeking, Needs, and Behavior by Donald O. Case and Lisa M. Given.
It's a great review of research over the past century on information needs and uses, sense-making, and information avoidance. I wish I had read it sooner, especially their list of recurring "information myths" that have led to flawed assumptions in this field (I'm listing a few lower down).
Case and Given offer some correctives on assumptions I too had made about the work of journalists: give voters a voting guide and they'll vote; document a politician's corrupt acts, and voters will force them out of office; confront the Russian elite with Putin's crimes, and there'll be justice for him, eventually.
An early learning after a few idealistic years as a reporter was that there's no intergalactic parliament reading my – or anyone's – reports, no matter how good the lede is. There's no certainty that anything will come of any articles, especially so when affected people are or feel disenfranchised.
A second, slower learning that took longer was that insightfulness is insufficient. Utility is critical, over time. What benefit does a reader derive from consuming this piece of reporting, and return to its source? The various value propositions canvas models can really help with this.
My third, current, learning is how media is tied to psychological and social experience. A friend who shall not be named recently pointed out that "some of what happens on a morning radio show, for example, isn’t information transfer but rather it’s an intangible human connection between the listener and the host that helps a person feel more connected to other humans in the city."
Yet, I rarely see that reflected in media strategy as a factor that is just as essential as reporting. Even in needs models, psychological gains are often framed as one value proposition among many to choose from (e.g. "educate me" vs "inspire me"). That may be insufficient.
We at my tiny venture Gazzetta have been working on audience research processes to build greater empathy for such needs. We have been testing them (and failing and iterating) over the past months in some tough spaces. If you're interested in helping us get this right, do get in touch.
(We also started a new site that will slowly grow with project work, feedback welcome!)
As promised, some excerpts below from Case and Given on information myths:
Myth: Only “objective” information is valuable.
People are not always rational; we do not always scan for new information to optimize our thinking, nor do we only access reliable, proven sources. People tend to use easily available sources of information, selecting quick, immediate answers, rather than the best information.
Myth: More information is always better.
Too much information leads to cognitive overload, and we start to ignore or avoid information. People have plenty of information around them, yet they struggle to interpret and understand what they see, read, or hear. Having information is not the same as “being informed.”
Myth: Only formal sources, such as vetted institutions, are essential.
Most people consult formal, vetted sources rarely. Instead, they rely on informal sources, often friends and family, or information they encounter serendipitously.
I posted all ten myths here.
Though unintentional, their research review makes a case for community journalism as a far more effective approach to informing people than traditional content production.
That's not to make a (valid) value judgment of how journalism should be more inclusive and insightful but broadens its practice to more closely match the range of ways of how people experience and exchange information.
Must information be useful? If information does not have an effect (e.g., improving a task), why would we talk about it? One of the most cited definitions of information is “that which reduces uncertainty”. Yet, some information increases uncertainty (e.g., a medical diagnosis). People claim information is power, but most information gives us little or no power. If we knew what stocks would increase in value tomorrow, we could make money and use it in powerful ways. But, while having such specialized, formal knowledge may grant privileges, its power involves performance, competence, institutions and social relations. Some scholars consider all stimuli to be informative, including sounds (e.g., music), sights (e.g., videos), or touch (e.g., warm sunshine on skin). Each sensation tells us something, may impart useful information, and lead to knowledge; but knowledge must have agency to create power.
So much of that sense of agency is created in shared experiences.
Looking back
CitizenLab released a report on a spear phishing campaign by Russia's FSB against journalists. I was among those impersonated by the hackers to gain access to dissidents' inboxes. It's a reminder that we all have a responsibility to not take security lightly.
Such cases are increasingly ubiquitous. "Cyber espionage against civil society is a major component of digital transnational repression, which has been growing in scope and scale worldwide," the authors attested.
The report had some good advice on what to do to reduce the risk of getting caught up in such hacking attempts:
- Check your inbox for the sender’s email, and see if they match.
- Check with the sender over a different medium, like Signal.
- Don't just click on attachments or any links. If you see a "login page" pop up, stop.
- Beware of “encrypted” or “protected” pdfs. (Dangerzone is a great tool for pdf inspection)
If you have been affected, Access Now has a helpline that really helps. If you believe I can help, get in touch via Signal.
Separately, I have many thoughts on the arrest of the Telegram founder Durov, but that's for another edition. Two good points below that show that we need to get used to two things being true at the same time:
The narrative that global authoritarian censors are persecuting a free speech hero is pure myth-making in this case. – Renée diResta for The UnPopulist
"At the dawn of print, the technologists – printers – were held responsible for what came off their presses, then booksellers. Finally authors were responsible, which Foucault says was the birth of the author. I think we will go through a similar sequence with the net & AI." – Jeff Jarvis on Threads
Coda has a good, short profile of Durov, and Casey Newton writes about how the case could reshape the internet.
Looking ahead
At the end of September, I'll be hosting a "circle" with digital rights practitioners at the Global Gathering in Estoril, Portugal, on how to support disrupted media. If you're going, please join! I hope to test some new ideas including the audience research we're working on, and catch up on all the new internet freedom initiatives out there.
In October, you'll find Marguerite Meyer and me at the free, virtual Mental Health in Journalism Summit talking about the hunter vs. farmer hypothesis for ADHD. You'll also find me at the virtual (but not free) News Product Alliance Summit, where Becky Pallack and I will be co-facilitating a session on lean strategies for audience research. We called it "Empathy without Exhaustion". Tickets are available on the NPA site.
I'm also so grateful to get to go to Splice Beta in November to speak on learnings from exiled media. Chiang Mai was one of the first stops in my journalism career with The Irrawaddy. I hope to reconnect with old friends from my Burmese and Chinese media days. So many people are (back) there now.
It's really nice to finally meet Rishad and Alan from Splice in person, who I've learned so much from over the years. They have done so much to socialize journalism as a service, not a performative high priesthood.
Tickets will be available soon on the Splice site. If you happen to have some spare change, consider donating to their Beta fund that supports participants. Plane tickets and hotels are out of reach for a lot of people, this can make all the difference.
If you are at these gatherings or want to connect or discuss projects, let me know by sending me an email, a message on Signal or claim a slot in my calendar.
The team and I are fully immersed in projects until next year but we're always happy to discuss ideas, help brainstorm and connect you with others working on similar problems.
That's it from me at the beginning of a beautiful first autumn month. You'll hear from me again at the end of it, from Lisbon. Thank you for reading.