War and peace in networks
These days, networks and cliques don't stay secret for long. This makes transparency a must. Op-ed by Josefa Haas, Director of the Media Institute.
Nobody expected this: The two owners of Basler Zeitung Medien, Tito Tettamanti and Martin Wagner, have sold the company after just a few months. After protests from the editorial team and representatives of the Basel public, they apparently lacked the central foundation for a media business: trust. The savvy financier Tito Tettamanti did what he would probably have done with other investments in a similar case: he sold his stake as quickly as possible. The financial risk was compounded by a personal injury. The connections to Christoph Blocher fueled the suspicion that the new owners were part of the extended political SVP circle: The role of newspaper owner thrust Tito Tettamanti into the public spotlight, but instead of applause there were boos.
Martin Wagner and Tito Tettamanti became publishers thanks to their networks. It was again their networks that led to their withdrawal. Attempts to provide factual reasons for their decisions in communications were fruitless: Editor-in-chief Markus Somm and advisor Christoph Blocher could not escape their shared history. When the biographer and the person portrayed are given key roles in the same company within a short space of time, it was probably the good relationships that ensured the collaboration. When positions are distributed within a network, this network remains the center of attention.
In the media industry, rope teams and networks of relationships work very well. They also have their good points: People know each other, are a well-coordinated team and don't have to argue about attitudes and working methods. Familiar colleagues don't cause stress. And you can easily have a beer with them in the evening. The disadvantages: Too much closeness makes you blind. By patting each other on the back, you cover up weaknesses at the same time. For outsiders, the barriers to entry to a club are high. And the biggest disadvantage: these networks like to be discreet. As a rule, the readers know nothing about it.
However, this will change: New habits create new needs. Today, it takes two clicks and the CVs of my contacts are on my screen. If I want to get to know them a little better, I take a closer look at their circle of friends. Tell me which networks you use and I'll tell you who you are. Who knows who? Who is friends with whom? Or business connections? Who is an indirect contact? Or a direct contact? Where are there dependencies, economic and/or personal? Who has a score to settle with whom?
Anyone who builds up their social network on the Internet discovers surprising connections. The success of Facebook and Xing is also creating a new awareness of the importance of networks. And those who analyze the contacts discover exciting patterns. Interesting studies show, for example, how opinion patterns spread via Twitter and Facebook. It is both fascinating and frightening how much can be found out about private individuals using publicly accessible data.
Today, media managers are also expected to reveal personal details. Anyone who pays attention to an author on the Internet today wants to be able to access their profile, find out about their skills, their attitudes, their preferences. Media providers cannot send information out into the world as neutrals. If news can be accessed at will, then knowledge of the sender is what makes a story valuable. This applies not only to media professionals, but also to the owners and managers of media companies. The disclosure of motivations and goals, transparency about production processes and the flow of funds are part of future media marketing. Here too, the digital public wants to get to know the responsible faces and their stories.
Moritz Suter presents the purchase as a decision that he only discussed with his wife. However, he also lives in his networks. There is already speculation about who supported him in the purchase. Without these relationships, he cannot successfully anchor the Basler Zeitung in the reader and advertising market. If he manages to build trust within and among his networks, his relationships will hopefully soon provide the economic stability that is a prerequisite for successful quality journalism.
Martin Wagner and Tito Tettamanti became publishers thanks to their networks. It was again their networks that led to their withdrawal. Attempts to provide factual reasons for their decisions in communications were fruitless: Editor-in-chief Markus Somm and advisor Christoph Blocher could not escape their shared history. When the biographer and the person portrayed are given key roles in the same company within a short space of time, it was probably the good relationships that ensured the collaboration. When positions are distributed within a network, this network remains the center of attention.
In the media industry, rope teams and networks of relationships work very well. They also have their good points: People know each other, are a well-coordinated team and don't have to argue about attitudes and working methods. Familiar colleagues don't cause stress. And you can easily have a beer with them in the evening. The disadvantages: Too much closeness makes you blind. By patting each other on the back, you cover up weaknesses at the same time. For outsiders, the barriers to entry to a club are high. And the biggest disadvantage: these networks like to be discreet. As a rule, the readers know nothing about it.
However, this will change: New habits create new needs. Today, it takes two clicks and the CVs of my contacts are on my screen. If I want to get to know them a little better, I take a closer look at their circle of friends. Tell me which networks you use and I'll tell you who you are. Who knows who? Who is friends with whom? Or business connections? Who is an indirect contact? Or a direct contact? Where are there dependencies, economic and/or personal? Who has a score to settle with whom?
Anyone who builds up their social network on the Internet discovers surprising connections. The success of Facebook and Xing is also creating a new awareness of the importance of networks. And those who analyze the contacts discover exciting patterns. Interesting studies show, for example, how opinion patterns spread via Twitter and Facebook. It is both fascinating and frightening how much can be found out about private individuals using publicly accessible data.
Today, media managers are also expected to reveal personal details. Anyone who pays attention to an author on the Internet today wants to be able to access their profile, find out about their skills, their attitudes, their preferences. Media providers cannot send information out into the world as neutrals. If news can be accessed at will, then knowledge of the sender is what makes a story valuable. This applies not only to media professionals, but also to the owners and managers of media companies. The disclosure of motivations and goals, transparency about production processes and the flow of funds are part of future media marketing. Here too, the digital public wants to get to know the responsible faces and their stories.
Moritz Suter presents the purchase as a decision that he only discussed with his wife. However, he also lives in his networks. There is already speculation about who supported him in the purchase. Without these relationships, he cannot successfully anchor the Basler Zeitung in the reader and advertising market. If he manages to build trust within and among his networks, his relationships will hopefully soon provide the economic stability that is a prerequisite for successful quality journalism.
