Pete Cashmore, CEO of Mashable, presents is interviewed at SXSW Interactive 2015
During this year’s SXSW Interactive two key ideas that are critical for sustaining a free and democratic society seemed to grow increasingly hazy as the week progressed: privacy and journalism.
The modern idea of privacy, understood since the 16th century as something personal that is protected from public knowledge, has been called into question by two recent cultural phenomena: Social technologies and pervasive surveillance. Our “always on” mobile devices with HD-quality cameras and GPS sensors are loaded with apps designed to connect us with all of our friends and followers in real-time. As we Facebook, Tweet, SnapChat, Yak, Instagram, Tumble, Google, Pin, Swarm and now Meerkat we broadcast our identity in text and image and share (either actively or passively) our location. As opposed to protecting things from public knowledge, we leave few personal stones unturned, shining a light on our lives for all the world to see.
Further, our general acceptance of a culture of surveillance devalues the classic idea of privacy. Social media platforms and our Google activity generates massive amounts of data that is being mined to both understand and even predict social and individual behavior. While drones were grounded over SXSW this year, their proliferation is raising questions about who is operating them and for what purpose. Large cities have deployed cameras everywhere, watching their citizens’ every move. Businesses have placed cameras throughout their establishments as a way to deter theft, but they also end up being public surveillance points. Because of the pervasive presence of public surveillance most of us are resigned to the fact that private space is shrinking (if not disappearing) in a culture of mass surveillance.
Research shows that while Gen X and Gen Y seem willing to exchange privacy for the value delivered by social media and the security of pervasive surveillance, the Millennial generation is becoming increasingly privacy savvy. The emergence of anonymous social networks like SnapChat, Secret, Whisper and Yik Yak are an indicator that the next generation wants to control who has access to their identity. During several sessions I attended, developers indicated that Millennials encouraged them to build controls into their apps that allow the user to control shared content. In an intriguing session on fashion and data privacy, Eliza Esquivel, VP of Global Brand and Creative Excellence for Mondelez International, shared how in an attempt to increase brand relevance among Millennials for Trident gum they created a fashion line that was made from radio frequency (RF) shielding materials. When a smartphone is placed in a pocket on these outfits the device “goes dark,” freeing the wearer from being contacted or tracked. So, at least among Millennials, privacy may be making a comeback due, in part, to the growing cultural skepticism about surveillance and tracking in the wake of the revelations of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden that demonstrate to what degree we are all being watched. However, the sort of privacy Millennials desire differs from privacy as understood in prior generations. They still desire the transparency of social sharing, but want control over what is shared with whom and how it impacts how they are perceived.
So, when it comes to privacy, SXSW Interactive 2015 has left me with the question: What exactly is privacy?
Similar questions were raised for me about journalism and the free press. Both Pete Cashmere of Mashable and Jonah Peretti of BuzzFeed, two of today’s leading online news resources, talked about the continued growth of their platforms and the way that journalism and brands are merging. Alongside reporter-based news stories on these platforms are stories told by journalists surrounding branded content. Even the U.S. brand of The Guardian blends traditional, reported news stories with sponsored content using a color-coded rubric to signal to readers when they are viewing content supported by a brand. With the blending of brand stories and news on these and other platforms, how can a reader discern what is in-depth reporting and what is branded content? Do they just know it when they see it?
Meredith Kopit Levien, EVP of Advertising for The New York Times, assured the audience during her panel session that the Times will continue to maintain a wall of separation between their news team and journalists employed to tell brand stories, ensuring the integrity of their reporting. Dan Rather, long-time anchor of the CBS Evening News, said that early in his career news was understood in the industry as a public service. Marketing and advertising was part of the network operations surrounding other programming. However, in the later years, news programming was looped in with other programming and was required to drive ratings and advertising revenue. While he maintains his integrity as what he called an “honest broker of information,” he did indicate that the breakdown of the separation has impacted the culture of professional journalism. News has become more partisan in some cases, and in others the pressure to fulfill the marketing role of a news personality has cost reporters their integrity.
So, like privacy, the trust required of the role of the journalist is being disrupted by the convergence of news and marketing on the diverse and growing number of online news platforms. In the future, as Dan Pfeiffer, former Senior Advisor to President Obama noted, there will be an increasing number of news sources available in the public square. The larger number of news outlets will be a boon of opportunity for journalists who love to research and tell great stories; however, none of these platforms will be run (for long anyway) as a public service. Eventually the marketing role will become more essential and will impact the quality of the journalism as brands continue to approach news platforms with marketing dollars that will support journalism. How will our democratic republic get at the truth in this new news economy? Will we only trust those news outlets that tell us the stories we like to hear (I’m looking at you FOX News and political conservatives)? Or will the American public develop the wisdom to discern the key issues in 4 or 5 versions of stories on the same topics?
For the sort of democratic freedom we enjoy to continue, some sense of privacy must prevail. Free people are negated in the midst of a surveillance culture where they lose their identity as discrete persons. In addition, continuing to inform the public with honesty and integrity will help maintain the distinction between news and marketing. Journalists must be able to speak truth to power in a democratic political order, and it is difficult to do this when the concerns of public relations, marketing and advertising are also at the table, or worse, running the show.