Something that keeps cropping up whenever I meet with museum and gallery professionals is the tricky issue of Authorial Voice (caps added to make it sound more… er… authoritative).

The traditional model has of course always been: we tell you what we believe… and you (the public) believe us. The explosion of online content sources such as Wikipedia has put a rather large dent in this model; users have access to so much information (and not all of it good) that they are perhaps less likely to accept what institutions tell them at face value. Or, to put it another way, a dialogue is beginning to happen between institutions and users. And that’s a good thing.

My naughty link to the questionable content at the Creationist Museum leads to an important point. Some institutions in America are now adding ‘we believe’ to long-held absolute positions, like evolution. There is an opposing belief - and if cultural institutions scoff and ignore they will only help to legitimise it. We need to engage with the argument and prove our point.

Users have access to unparalleled amounts of content; this is a new thing, it’s a good thing but it’s never happened on anything like this scale before. The more viewpoints we can access, the more complicated the cultural landscape becomes - and therefore it is all the more important that museums and galleries are seen to take a firm but well-reasoned - and appropriately open - position.

But what happens when the content leaves the institution and Joe Public gets their hands on it? I’ll look at that in my next post, You’re wrong and I’ll write (clever, eh?)

Journalism professor, Jeff Jarvis, has written an interesting piece in this week’s Media Guardian, provoked by the New York Times’ decision to abandon its policy, after two years, of charging for content online. Jarvis proposes that this step is the latest affirmation of:

“a new economy of content online that isn’t built on scarcity and control but instead relies on the idea that content must be public and permanent to realise its value in the wider conversation.”

He suggests that the notion that consumers should come and pay for scarce and controlled information, seeking out brands and entering through the front doors designed for them is dying a death. Instead, people will arrive because of their own needs (ie search) or peers’ recommendations (via links).

He goes on to counsel:

“we in the media must open ourselves to the public in every way possible. Tearing down walls – pay, registration, archive. or just obtuse navigation – is only the start of it. I believe this also means finding more ways for our audiences to distribute us”.

Just as the publishing world attempts to get to grips with the seismic shifts de-stabilizing long-held business models and practices, so broadcasting is tasked with similar challenges – and opportunities.

This week sees the announcement of BBC Vision’s multi-platform strategy, as the public service broadcaster continues to re-position itself within a digital world of plenty. A Pact preview of the strategy suggests that the BBC are thinking in a similar way to Jarvis – that real value is not built upon scarcity and control. Rather, as content is woven into the tapestry of the online media ecology, it is about engaging in the wider conversation.

Read the article here

Jeff Jarvis’ blog