And on the dangers of generalizing..I’d argue Canada is less collectivist than some parts of the US (then again I’m of rebellious Western Canadian stock) and, as a country, is trending away from 70s statism after paying the bills for it during the 90s. Having said that, Canadians’ historical relationship with government (different to the US based upon a very different history, different “national myths” and settlement patterns, bicultural foundations, British institutions and historical ‘openness’/multiculturalism, etc) combines with strong individualism to produce the “balance” Fraser mentions.

As a further digression….TJ Allard’s 1958 history of Canadian broadcasting raises the long-forgotten fact that the founding of the CBC, as with (and based upon) the BBC, was hugely paternalistic and uninterested in any kind of national dialogue. This is not to say it did not produce greatness, as it could & did, but it often could not reflect authenticity as a communications medium. This is something the CBC and BBC both continue to struggle with….Lacking local voices, in Canada private radio, and then TV, emerged across the country basically as an unstoppable expression of what people actually wanted to say and hear. Interestingly, the CBC’s French side, Radio-Canada, was and is very much an authentic reflection of Quebec’s language and culture and continues to dominate TV and radio ratings in French as it has for decades (Canadian francophones have little interest in programs from France and, interestingly, less interest in dubbed US shows than their European confreres)….

To Sean’s wider question, mainstream media Canada are just as burdened economically as their US counterparts. There was discussion of a federal “bailout” of sorts for private broadcasters earlier this year as ad revenues plummet, jobs and budgets cut at the CBC, a number of magazines have gone under (although a huge number of new titles had emerged in the early part of the decade, so some of this was inevitable), and times are generally tough for old-stock media.

I find the book you referenced by Botan and Hazleton, along with the work of Heath, Toth and Elwood, to name a few scholars who have taken a rhetorical approach to public relations, to be much more relevant to the actual practice of PR (as opposed to its management as a function within a larger organization). Unfortunately, navel-gazing and project management tips seem to dominate PR research while the actual study of how people and organizations use public discourse to make things happen takes a back seat.

Jim – I’m in the midst of reading “Persuasion: An Intrinsic Function of Public Relations,” by Drs. Michael Pfau of Oklahoma and Hua-Hsin Wan of UTEP — a chapter in Public Relations Theory II, edited by Drs. Carl Botan and Vince Hazleton. Hence, the angle on two-way symmetry. Going back to a couple of earlier posts on anonymity, accountability and authority: “the lack of credible local voices within social media, especially outside the major world centres.” So far, we have self-described experts/gurus and a few who have begun the difficult task of trying to professionalize social media, e.g., Katie Paine, Don Bartholomew, Dr. Don Wright… This lack would seem to be related to your claim that social media is ruggedly individualistic – however, because social media has a glitterati that is utterly convinced of its superiority, there’s a “conform to one’s non-conformity” angle here as well. Look at the debate over how to measure social media effectiveness!

Chuck — the customer service angle for social media is a good one — @comcastcares is a great example. But such matters are too easy to game: I could start a Twitter profile tomorrow @Real_Comcast, answer questions and give succor, and it would take more than a while to discover and shut me down. If I give good advice, even though I have no qualifications, perhaps no one will ever know. Is that desirable?

Kathryn — Lunchtime O’ can continue to cover city hall, but how will he get paid for his work? That’s probably a different post, but Lunchtime’s opinions about things may or may not be as valuable as his reporting, but anyway, thanks for your comment.

Don B — I think the jury is still out on whether social media is truly peer-to-peer. It certainly started out that way, but as with many communication innovations, there are a lot of us out there trying to figure out how to make money using these tools. The involvement of “brands,” treating social media as another channel; of advertisers; of politicians — this is mass communication writ anew. There are examples of the peer-to-peer model in action, and certainly Retweeting is in that category. I’m not yet convinced.

Not least, Amanda Chapel

1. “Symmetry” confuses here. Social media is asymmetrical by definition. Suffice to say, Grunig’s more about direct “2-way.” [If Social Media is a broadcast tool, rather than one engendering dialogue, then I agree -- as I understand it, the intent of social media is to create and support dialogue, with varying success thus far.]

2. “Two-way” comes with assumptions. Grunig’s theory is nice situationally but is neither realistic or practical broadly. Hell, we have courts of law – where we present – for the very reason that the 2-way model also regularly leads to fist fights and duels. [I think there certainly is a situational component to the Excellence Theory -- sometimes dialogue is impossible, ill-advised or wrong.]

3. Bernays’ persuasion-oriented model is PR’s DNA… FOR A REASON! Abuses aside, there are by-and-large checks and balances. Web2 has none. It celebrates outlaw. It empowers our worst actors and attempts to raise direct shilling to a bona fide vocation. [Understood. Evidence? The CEOs don't care about "the conversation" --Mack Collier] http://mackcollier.com/your-boss-doesnt-care-about-the-conversation/

4. The Web2/SMedia unregulated free-for-all doesn’t just reduce asymmetrical power relationships; it annihilates organizations and value altogether. [If it comes to pass the way you believe, we're hosed in ways we cannot imagine.]

5. With regard to “Stakeholders can share information more freely,” that belief misses an essential point. When you trade symphony for cacophony you lose all coherence. And God said, “Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.” [Even chaos produces its own regime of order -- Fractals, for example. Additionally, trends move like pendulums, swinging back and forth. Free jazz has no meter or key -- it's unpleasant to those of us who grew up with consonant music. Again, we'll see. I hope you're wrong.]

6. “This seems to me a profoundly collectivist view” absolutely… and completely antithetical to our empirically-derived Constitution. The hacker zeitgeist at the root of Web2 is in direct conflict with “possessive individualism.” Property rights are fundamental to our system. [As Fraser mentioned, the perceptions of collectivism and democracy aren't the same in all cultures. I will say that the current political climate in the U.S. is bent on rewriting the rules of property...]

7. “Let’s work together” is a losers’ replacement for “let’s compete.” [Sometimes - but the search for common ground is another hallmark of the American experience. Congress, for all its faults, still takes diametrically opposed positions and reconciles them along a shared, negotiated continuum.]

8. ” How dare the person who created the content demand to get paid?” EXACTLY. Or eat for that matter. [Free is not a business model. Unless your goal is to make all of us dependents.]

_________________________________________________________
Collectivism, Collaboration, and Societal Corporatism as Core Professional Values in Public Relations
James E. Grunig
Journal of Public Relations Research, Volume 12, Issue 1 January 2000 , pages 23 – 48

Abstract
Public relations must achieve professional status before its social role will be broadly accepted as valuable to society and organizational clients will accept readily the advice of public relations counselors. Professions are based on core values and a body of knowledge that provides expertise on how to implement those values. Professionalism empowers public relations managers to negotiate with clients to change organizational behavior-helping organizations to rise above the “wrangle in the marketplace” to consider the interests of publics as well as their own interests. The core value of public relations is the value of collaboration, which also can be found in the concepts of societal corporatism, collectivism, and communal relationships. Activist groups benefit from professional public relations counsel just as much as other organizations, and the same generic principles of public relations apply to activist communication. Activist groups must use specific applications of these principles, however, when they need to overcome a lack of power.
___________________________________________________________

I’m proud to say that a poli sci paper on the effect of corporatist and pluralist political systems on interest groups that I did in grad school was part of Jim’s reading before he wrote the article. Regarding Canada, we somehow try to balance both. For example, with regard to MSM, we have the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, mostly state funded and showing mostly Canadian programming – with huge emphasis on public affairs shows. We also have privately funded stations, such as for example Global that shows mostly US originating shows – with huge emphasis on sitcoms.

Fraser

My point with regard to social media and collectivism (I’m working this through the little grey cells) is that collectivism subordinates individual ownership to a concept of common good. How that common good is defined is a problem — usually, there is some kind of elite that (whether good or evil) seeks to impose its will. The recent example of Jeff Jarvis battling with Connie Schultz of the PD over whether copyright should be more rigidly enforced is apropos. Jarvis’ point seems to be that information shouldn’t carry a fee — that news, in particular, cannot and should not be owned.

How do you see that question? Obviously, Canada has a more collectivist socio-economic system than the U.S.; are the mainstream media suffering there to a similar extent?

I remain somewhat more hopeful than others on this account, as I can point to various outlets that are successfully charging access fees for their content — the Wall Street Journal most notably.

Cheers again Fraser!
Sean

Allow me one point in this conversation. Although it appears that the application of SM communication networks/channels/vehicles/tools are universal around the world, they, like their predecessor MSM tools, are regulated by the underlying cultural values found in different regions/countries of the world. Concepts such as symmetry, accommodation, collectivism/individualism, and democracy itself play out differently. Country to country, the communication tools may be the same, but the value system is different.

That’s why we get lots of gun fights and murders on American TV, but little erotic sex.

I would suggest that most of the preceding posts looked at SM/MSM and the concepts of symmetry, accommodation, collectivism/individualism, and democracy from a USA centric viewpoint. What J. Grunig called a worldview seems, from the above posts, not to take the whole world into consideration. We may want to look at the work of Dr. Krishnamurthy Sriramesh on the relationship of culture to public relations.

This is not a question of democratic countries vs non-democratic countries, it is a question of the different types of democracies. Like religions, no one democracy is better than any other democracy. From what we have seen in the past, MSM plays out differently in different democracies. So will social media.

All the best, Sean.

Fraser

I don’t think our society was built on intellectual capital, but rather it was built on agrarian pragmatism (e.g., “yeoman farmers”), with a core of civil liberties based on several hundred years of British common law and political development. It was hard, dangerous work. But you manage to romanticize that into an “authority built on ideals and Enlightenment”, as if the people who constructed the framework were academics, reporters — or PR professionals. I don’t think so. Educated yes, and visionaries, but they are only romantic in hindsight. You say they “enshrined radical rights of the individual against the power of the collective”? Maybe; I tend to think they wanted to protect the minority class of educated wealthy people from a majority of the poor. I think our authority is based on our success as a country able to defend ourselves and others, and to offer a better way of life.

What verifiable standards are you talking about? Where is this ideal world that is being destroyed? I’ve never been there. Had you said, “Truth, Justice and the American Way”, I would have believed you, because those are things I think are real. Those are attitudes I think are the shared social commonwealth. A “democracy”, if you can keep it.

So what is your experiment? To talk and see who listens? Well, I did, and you have my reply. Welcome to Web 2.0.

Best Wishes,
Scott Charles
PlumbBob Research
http://plumbbobresearch.com

Scott, there isn’t a call to action because that’s not the purpose of this post. The theme of many of the posts I’ve written is experimentation — I’m trying to get a handle on these tools by using them and engaging others. So, a special thank you to you!

Fear is a powerful motivator — but the fear of popularity outpacing cogency isn’t the adolescent variety. Instead, it’s the potential destruction of authority in the rhetorical sense; the source of information or opinion being authoritative by virtue of some kind of verifiable standard. In the Web 2.0 realm, we’re seeing people become important on the basis of number of followers on Twitter, or number of comments on a blog. What does this mean not just for public relations, but for a society built on intellectual capital? We were born, it’s true, of chaos and rebellion. But our authority was derived of greater stock — the power of ideals and the Enlightenment. We eschewed ‘mob rule’ in our governmental structure, made our moral base general rather than specific, and enshrined radical rights of the individual against the power of the collective.

Posturing certainly has been around a long time, and even 30 years’ worth may understate. We are seeing a sea change in how information is purveyed, however, from the third-party, presumably (but less so these days) objective to the true believers. This may represent a tectonic shift. Or, I may be completely full of shit.

Cheers.

Amanda Chapel: it’s nice to finally see some context for your content. The Twitter graffiti you post hardly does you justice. That said, nobody is trading “symphony for cacophony”. You want more signal and less noise, change the channel, or create your own channel. You don’t like posers? Stay of places where posers hang out. As for me, I like working with other people, as long as the hierarchy is not bigger then “1″. But that’s just me, to each his own. And yes hackers are vandals, so let’s punish them.

If it’s any consolation, look at it this way: the US was born of chaos and revolution. Our democracy matured across a hostile frontier. We’ve always had the free-for-all, the rough-and-tumble, the outlaws. I think the good news is we’re a secular leaning democracy with an agnostic view of process: whatever works, works. Pragmatism. Not good enough? Oh well. Pity.

Best Wishes,
Scott Charles
PlumbBob Research
http://www.plumbbobresearch.com