I have been asked by this newspaper to be a contributor to its blogospherical initiative Thought Leader. This is my maiden input. At first, I was sceptical of the newspaper’s invitation. Well, I still am. I thought to myself: whatever it is we call the “blogosphere” is meant to be deinstitutionalised, far removed from the institutional strictures characteristic of the mainstream media. But, it seems, nothing will escape the tentacles of mainstream media.
The blogosphere, affording an opportunity to people ordinarily with little or no access to the traditional media of communication, such as newspapers, radio and television, has become an instant hit. It is an example of what it means to communicate, sometimes communicating to no one in particular. There have been instances in which some bloggers have complained about receiving few or no responses to their messages, raising the question about the communicative potential of the medium.
But people want to indulge themselves; they want to “talk”, even if no one seems to be actively “listening” to them. The blogosphere provides that opportunity. It seems the traditional media are recognising the potential of this space. Is it for altruistic reasons? Is it for purposes of expanding the bounds of democratic expression, with greater citizen involvement? Is it because of the promise of commercial benefit? I am inclined to think in terms of the less noble objective of “hooking” the actual and the potential market on to their media “product”. And guess what? Advertising clearly plays a role here. It sure plays a role on this forum!
We must remember that not too long ago, many in the developed world had invested their hopes of an economically bright future in the so-called dot.com boom. But it was not long before this boom turned into bust. It seems to me that it was only then that most traditional media, which had been repositioning themselves to reap from the seed of the dot.com garden of roses, suddenly started thinking in terms of the more altruistic goal of using the internet for championing “democracy”, “citizenship participation”, “human rights” and so on.
But, in reality, this amounts to a media colonisation of cyberspace, complete with the carrot of inclusivity and the stick of commercialism. While opening the door to “thought leaders”, and in a sense legitimising them as such, the newspaper is institutionalising freedom of expression. By naming some of us as “thought leaders”, the newspaper is delegitimising other forms of thought. Or is it? Who is a “thought leader”, anyway? Whose thought is being foregrounded? By implication, whose thought is being backgrounded? What are the terms of engagement?
Clearly, all such terms seem to be editorially provided for by the newspaper. What mode of address must be used in this institutionalised forum? Even this seems to have been predetermined, ostensibly to avoid “defamation”, and so on. These are examples of the institutionalised character of a blogosphere colonised by traditional media. These are critical questions which, while we appreciate the initiative by the newspaper, must be continually asked and answered.
With that, I launch this, my first contribution as a “thought leader”.
Welcome Professor Banda. I actually have been meaning to nip this “thought leader” issue in the bud. Tony Lankester first brought it to my attention in his self description where he says he does not consider himself a “thought leader”. I would just like to make it clear right here that none of us should. We refer (hopefully) to ourselves as “thought leaders” only in the sense that we are people who blog on a site called Thought Leader – why it is so called is best left to editor Riaan. This site is not making a stake at being a platform for some sort of intelligentsia.
I think Thought Leader is a broad enough term to cover varying definitions.
The contributors here may or may not want to see themselves as thought leaders (as in intelligentsia), which is fine. We also feel that the people we invite are leaders in some way in their area of “expertise”, be it politics, writing, economics, humour and so forth.
However, they could also simply be thought leaders in the sense of presenting thoughts, opinions and views to “lead” into debate …
For me, the latter definition applies to Thought Leader as a whole: a website brimming with thoughts from intelligent people. Of course, I won’t mind if the site is seen as a leader among its kind …
Riaan, somehow you’ve managed to leave me feeling both humbled and exalted.
“It seems the traditional media are recognising the potential of this space. Is it for altruistic reasons? Is it for purposes of expanding the bounds of democratic expression, with greater citizen involvement? Is it because of the promise of commercial benefit?”
I can’t imagine that the M&G would invest in the services of Riaan and others for no return. They do after all have to cover their costs.
As I see it, Thoughtleader is a natural extension of the Mail & Guardian brand, which at its heart has always espoused the values of democracy. Blogging suits it admirably, since it gives an opportunity to those who wish to engage in a more immediate way with the issues of the day. Thoughtleader makes the Mail & Guardian more relevant; writing a letter to the editor for publication on Friday no longer hacks it.
(Riaan, are the contributors to Thoughtleader paid? I can’t imagine their doing all this work for nothing.)
I’ve tried to spread the gospel of Thoughtleader to those who inhabit the somewhat murky waters of the Mail & Guardian Forum (an aspect of the M&G that is, I think, getting harder and harder to justify from the point of view of the core newspaper brand), but they are deeply cynical about it.
So the notion of a more democratically accessible forum – citizen involvement if you will – is not entirely successful. But it represents good progress.
Well, I tend to think that blogging is nothing more than a temporary craze among already established internet users. It can never really replace the newspaper or the radio, in much the same way that technology will never really replace the aeroplane pilot. So we blog on for the sheer novelty of the thing, but we change nothing of ourselves. Who cares if we are ‘thought leaders’ or thought followers? Those are just convenient categories.
Newspapers, radio and most traditional forms of media = monologue; blogging helps turn this into a dialogue. The two complement one another. In fact, the blogging itself is less sigificant than the comments facility. That’s where the power of this approach lies, in its immediacy and interactivity.
I don’t think we will ever go back to the way things were; far from being a temporary craze, blogging – or at least some kind of platform that permits both people to express themselves and others to comment – will be with us for some time to come.
Well maybe you are right Sarah. It’s just that I’ve not been bowled over by this triumphalism of technology and globalization, especially when I see that there are significant parts of the world which have simply not been affecting by all this “revolution”. Do you know that there are still many people who require assistance to use an ATM? I will sing the praises of blogging if it allows South Africans from all walks of life to receive information and to contribute to topical debates. Untill then, the thing is just a practioners’ passing occupation.
Blogging could be a form on gonzo journalism – but the format and the development of the discourse depends not so much on thought leaders in the strictest sense but of those who are using leadership (in this case the thought leader initiative) to facilitate not only new narratives but also to associate ‘free’ narratives – which have not yet been internally censored (as most journalists do when pay is involved)or externaly censored or brutalised – which freelancer has not seen his work cut to pieces and left to bleed in public- with a space that is born of a brand such as the Mail and Guardian, essentially a powerful tool for the defense and enhancement of critical thought.
Monde, I agree that internet penetration in this country is too low for blogging, or indeed anything that happens online, to be truly democratic. For that, we can partly blame Telkom. If Tiger Brands can be fined for fixing the price of bread, why isn’t Telkom fined for making internet access unaffordable for most?
Welcome. And I hope we criticize you here as Robert has been or at least been criticized by others.
At least here you can say whatever you want but with responsibility which some people seem to lack. But I enjoy this blog than it’s forum.
Once again, welcome…
It’s a well-written and a pleasingly humble introduction. You’d collect a proper bollocking had you strolled in with a barrage of academic/intellectual name-dropping which is the wont of several other academics here to show us how cleverly you can show us you really UNDERSTAND all those tricky -sms and you’re casually conversant with lots of those turgid books. You appear to have the self-confidence to stay away from egg-headed show-offery.
Well done. Keep up this tone and you’ll go far.
Dear Sarah
Price fixing can’t be applied to Telkom, or Sasol, or petrol, or cellphone companies. You would know that if you were addicted to talk radio, like I am, and which is far from a monologue.