Ari Melber has written a great synthesis for The Nation about the new study “A Tale of Two Blogospheres” produced by a consortium of researchers from Harvard, Yale and Berkeley.

The study details the the structure (and resulting impact) of the left vs. right blogosphere or as they put it, “evidence of an association between ideological affiliation and the technologies, institutions, and practices of participation across political blogs.” This study completely coincides with the theories we lay out and the stories (and lessons learned) of Firedoglake, Feministing and Talking Points Memo that we detail out in our book Beyond The Echo Chamber: Reshaping Politics Through Networked Progressive Media.

Here are a few excerpts from Melber’s piece.

“One of the most striking findings is structural: liberal blogs provide audience participation options at triple the rate of conservative sites. That means visitors to progressive sites are more empowered to contribute entire posts to the “front page,” and more likely to have their contributions or comments highlighted before potentially hundreds of thousands of readers.

According to the authors, the netroots’ early embrace of deeper participation platforms, coupled with progressive bloggers interest in mobilizing fundraising and specific actions, helped prime the tactics and habits that supported the Democrats’ later web dominance (see chart).

The survey data does show that progressive bloggers were far more demanding of their readers.

One out of three liberal sites made direct fundraising pitches, and almost half asked readers to take some political action, according to a section of the study analyzing the top sixty-five blogs. On the right, however, only one out of twenty blogs pushed fundraising, and fewer than one out of five issued “calls to action.”

In the book, we tell the “impact story” of Firedoglake in a chapter titled “Assemble the Progressive Choir.” It demonstrates how FDL has successfully built a site that combines analysis, great acts of journalism, transparency, direct relationships between the bloggers and the community, a community forum, calls for action and fundraising (for the site itself and for political campaigns) to become one of the most successful progressive political blogs today.

I hope that both the blogosphere and the rapidly evolving legacy progressive media take heed from both the study and our book and continues with the much needed experimentation and implementation of community engagement, building and mobilization that will continue to build the overall impact of their journalism and messaging. It’s good for business. It’s good for impact.

This image summarizes the significant differences between the left and right blogosphere analyzed in the new study, “A Tale of Two Blogospheres.” (Click for larger image.)

Jessica and I had a wonderful interview on KPFA’s Morning Show with the wonderful host Aimee Allison (@aimeeallison) (and current Progressive Women’s Voice Fellow!) It was a lot of fun, even when we contended with a couple of tech/new media grumps. Take a listen. It starts at the 1 hr. 35 min. mark..

Please help spread the word! Send this flyer to your S.F. pals…

Join me and Tracy for a conversation with three high-impact independent media producers about how social media platforms are powering vibrant, diverse journalism experiments. On hand will be Steve Katz, the publisher of award-winning investigative magazine Mother Jones; Kevin Weston, the Director of New Media and Youth Communications at ethnic news network New America Media, and Susan Mernit, editor and publisher of community news hub Oakland Local. Learn how these pioneers are thriving in the rapidly shifting media environment and shaping independent journalism for the future.

Time: 6:00-7:30 PM Thursday, March 18th
Location: The Women’s Building, Audre Lorde Room, 3543 18th Street

Special thanks to our co-sponsors:

Media Alliance, G.W. Williams Center for Independent Journalism, Bay Area Video Coalition, Mother Jones, New America Media, Oakland Local

Conversation about the book continues to build as we recover from our Chicago party and gear up for the next bash in New York on Thursday:

• Our old digs—In These Times—excerpted the book’s “Beyond Pale, Male and Stale” chapter.
• Over at RH Reality Check, feminist blogger Amanda Marcotte interviewed Tracy about the importance of the netroots for the weekly “Reality Cast” podcast
• Leonard Doyle of UNFree Media considers the international implications of the media models we describe. “Beyond the Echo Chamber has the potential to change the US national conversation about progressive media and the future of journalism and it has lessons too for the world outside,” he writes. “Britain’s newspapers are so loud and opinionated that they [leave] little room for bloggers to stand out. But by sneering at participatory media, these outlets risk being left behind by emerging players.The same is true around the world where online media is still relatively in its infancy and progressive journalists, bloggers, producers, activists, readers, and policymakers are only now emerging.”
• On MediaShift, I suggest how our model of the four network layers might help media makers understand how to better evaluate the impact of their work.

We wrote the book to spark conversations about media strategy and evaluation, so it’s exciting to see people taking up our ideas and grappling with them. Stay tuned for more feedback!

Last night we spent a few hours talking to passionate, informed media makers and activists over at the Firedoglake Book Salon. Matthew Kerbel, the author of Netroots: Online Progressives and the Transformation of American Politics, served as our host; here’s a snippet of his introductory book review:

Clark and Van Slyke approach technology, journalism and political action as elements of a system, and showcase the way changes in each have facilitated changes in the others. Where a decade ago there was no progressive media strong enough to challenge either mainstream reporting or the right’s well-financed “noise machine,” the middle of the last decade witnessed the evolution of an interconnected media network fostered by emerging technology and the motivational pull of Bush administration policies. Initially, there were big gaps in the network, limiting its reach and effectiveness linking up emerging progressive media portals with established progressive organizations, elected officials, and mainstream media. But, these gaps were filled organically and, in retrospect, quickly, producing a fairly robust progressive infrastructure capable of influencing political outcomes and policy debates.

We talked with Matthew and members of the FDL community about our four network layers, the progressive media strategies we examine, and the pros and cons of developing progressive talking points. Couldn’t join the conversation? Catch it here.

Over the past week we’ve been featuring a series of visualizations that examine how media makers can work with various layers of networks to increase their impact. These layers include:

• Networked users
• Self-organized networks
• Institutional Networks
• Networks of Institutions

For our last visualization, we’re taking a closer look at how outlets can engage and collaborate with users at every stage of production, from conceptualization to distribution to evaluation.

Too often, makers and outlets only involve their users late in the process—to comment or donate funds in response to a finish product. But there are opportunities for engagement at every point, which can increase the relevance, “spreadability” and authenticity of your media project. Bringing users at key moments over time can involve them as a central part of your strategic planning, leading to a cycle of engagement that builds upon itself.

How open is your project to engaging networks of users? Check the boxes to find out:

| Download PDF

We’re finally here! Today we examine and visualize the last of the four layers of networks taken from our book Beyond The Echo Chamber. In this post, we offer not one, but two visualizations that illustrate how media makers can integrate and interact with the final network layer: Networks of Institutions.

As a quick recap, over the last few posts we have examined and visualized three of the four layers including:

• Networked users: See Monday’s post
• Self-organized networks: See Tuesday’s post
• Institutional Networks: See Wednesday’s post

Networks of Institutions bring together all of the previous layers—users, self-organized groups and institutional networks—to form the most complex and powerful of all the networked layers.

With this layer, we break down the walls preventing journalism and media organizations from working together and with other organizations. In fact, we argue, in this new networked media environment, when faced with increased competition and reduced resources, collaboration and cooperation are key to impact.

In the visualization below, we describe what makes up the first kind of Network of Institutions: a Media Network. “Media makers and outlets can form collaborative networks to jointly report on complex issues, and structure new models for innovation and revenue,” as we elaborate in the book. “Bloggers and legacy media outlets can and should coordinate around shared reporting on complex issues, work together to build upon each other’s strengths, and fill in each other’s gaps.”

| Download PDF

The Media Consortium (with Tracy as the Project Director) is a current example of a media network.

Common characteristics of a media network include:

• sharing tools and business strategies
• working together to integrate/build upon editorial strengths
• collectively influencing public discourse
• setting/leading news agendas
• building relationships and advocating for sector

But we’re not done. Networks of Institutions also include a “hybrid model.” As we note in Beyond the Echo, “Networks that combine media outlets, nonprofits, and grassroots organizations can work together to drive traffic, build buzz, and raise the stakes around particular issues or events.” We explain that such partnerships can, “drive traffic and awareness via single stories or shared long-term interest in a particular topics. As such networks of institutions develop, the partner institutions can cross-post reporting, devise action opportunities, jointly fund-raise, and more.”

| Download PDF

Characteristics of Hybrid Networks include:

• Combine media outlets, institutions and networks
• Short or long-lasting
• Formed around an ad hoc campaign or a persistent issue
• Spread content and make connections among multiple institutional networks to drive and inform action and set news agendas
• Can strengthen movements and overall progressive movement. (NOTE: not all hybrid networks have to be political or ideological. Feel free to rethink this characteristic if if it applies to your organization’s mission and your sector.)

And last, but not least, here are the strategic questions for media organizations to ponder when deciding how to integrate strategic networks into their work.

• How can your outlet strategically build and connect with hybrid networks?
• How can you reach new users and inform mobilization?

And that’s it for our special series on the four layers of networks! These posts and visualizations are intended to stir conversation (and possibly arguments) among media leaders, makers, funders, investors, academics, users and more. We also hope they will be used as strategic tools by a broad swath of media makers as they determine how they should operate in this network-powered media environment for long-term sustainability and impact.

For more information and detailed analysis of the four layers of networks, please be sure to check out our book Beyond The Echo Chamber.

But we’re not done yet—stay tuned for a super secret, super awesome visualization release. You’re not going to want to miss it.

Hello again! We’re on the third layer of our Four Layers of Networks taken from our book Beyond The Echo Chamber where we are not only defining, but visualizing how media makers can interact with each of these networked layers for maximum impact. So far we’ve described and visualized the first two layers:

• Networked users: See Monday’s post.
• Self-organized networks: See Tuesday’s post.

The next two layers move from ad hoc networks to more durable and deliberately organized networks.

• Institutional Networks
• Networks of Institutions

Today, we zero in on “Institutional Networks.

In Beyond The Echo Chamber, we write, “Through short and long-term partnerships, outlets can work with allies to funnel their content to institutional networks and directly track how this content is used for action. Connecting content to outcomes is a critical component of demonstrating the impact of the [progressive] media. If done correctly, partnering with institutional networks helps make that connection clear.”

| Download PDF
The opportunities for media makers to work with institutional networks is noted in the visual. “Media makers can also harness more durable networks of users — hosted or organized by institutions such as nonprofits or campaigns — to share content, offer crowdsourcing opportunities, and develop fundraising relationships.” Download the Institutional Networks PDF.

Characteristics of Institutional Networks include:

• more formal than self-organized networks
• longer-lasting
• hosted/supported by institutions that provide: organizing tools—i.e. widgets, petitions, frames, backgrounders; offline organizing opportunities and action prompts

Media makers must ask themselves these strategic questions when discerning how to help create or work with Institutional Networks.

• What institutional networks might use or host your content?
• What tools and strategies can help you to assess how networks use your work?
• How can your outlet work entice members of an institutional network to also join your network?

For a more detailed examination of Institutional Networks, the other three layers of networks, and much, much more please be sure to buy your own personal copy of Beyond The Echo Chamber today. We’re coming to the end of our four layers of networks.

Next on the list: Networks of Institutions. (But as a special bonus, you’ll get two visuals for the price of one blog!)

And as always, let us know your feedback and comments on any or all of these four layers of networks and if you’re using them for your own strategic development.

Welcome back to the second in our blog series on the Four Layers of Networks. Taken from our book Beyond The Echo Chamber (buy your copy today!), we are not only defining, but visualizing these four layers. They include:

• Networked users: See Monday’s post on this first and foundational layer.
• Self-organized networks
• Institutional Networks
• Networks of Institutions

Today we take a look at how media organizations must strategically think about integrating and interacting with the second layer: Self-Organized Networks.

In Beyond The Echo Chamber, we note, “Networked individuals users tend to be part of many overlapping online groups, crossing boundaries of work, play and, politics. Such groups can be fleeting or durable, open or closed, sprawling or focused–but each offers media makers the possibility of amplifying issues, engaging in viral, outreach, and attracting new supporters and users.”

| Download PDF

As noted in the visualization, “Users can work together to form ad hoc networks around unifying elements such as shared issues and/or breaking events. Media makers can tap into these networks to spread relevant content, follow breaking trends, and cover collective actions.”

Characteristics of Self-Organized Networks include:

• made up of networked users
• can form for an hour, a day, months or years
• united by common interests, concerns, issues, enemies, desired outcomes

Media makers must ask themselves these strategic questions when discerning how to help create or work with Self-Organized Networks:

• How can media producers participate in self-organized networks?
• How can you offer tools, space, actions, and content that help networks to form?
• How are networks using your content, and how are you actively engaging them?

Please leave comments and feedback, as we hope our definition and understanding about these networks is only the starting point. We’d also love to hear how/if your organization are using these visualizations in your strategic development. And don’t forget to purchase Beyond The Echo Chamber for a more detailed look at Self-Organized Networks, the other three layers of networks, and oh so much more. Next up: “Institutional Networks!”