<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: David Attenborough&#8217;s Ten Rules for Television Presenters Apply to Community Managers Too?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://futureoftelevision.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/david-attenboroughs-ten-rules-for-television-presenters-apply-to-community-managers-too/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://futureoftelevision.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/david-attenboroughs-ten-rules-for-television-presenters-apply-to-community-managers-too/</link>
	<description>What stories will we tell about television?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:07:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: amc123</title>
		<link>http://futureoftelevision.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/david-attenboroughs-ten-rules-for-television-presenters-apply-to-community-managers-too/#comment-23</link>
		<dc:creator>amc123</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2008 02:00:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://futureoftelevision.wordpress.com/?p=9#comment-23</guid>
		<description>“Presenters” and the idea of “social media intermediaries” raise the central issue of “trust” and what this might mean for our future televisual environments.

From the media studies perspective, presenters like Attenborough, who subscribe to transparent professional and ethical codes of practice like the ones outlined here, can be viewed as  “mechanisms of trust” (1), adopted by broadcasters to facilitate a relationship between their service and the remote viewer. In the conventional viewing context, the  “presenter” thus becomes a “fictive presence” providing a sense of legitimacy, connection, and intimacy with their audience. And as a result audiences build a sense of trust with the production/broadcasting brand.

But can the traditional media organization trust the audience? The conventional viewer relationship is of course being disrupted now that viewers/participators no longer have to accept a passive and “fictive” relationship with producers or media organizations. And programs are not “presented” in the same ways if they are interactive and multi-layered across various platforms. 

I suppose the development of the “moderator” or “intermediary manager” roles is a form of “presenter” function and another “mechanism of trust’, which now has to accommodate, not only the professional codes of the organisation that pays for it, but also the relationships with the online audiences in their social/production space.

So I guess the question for me is how might “trust mechanisms” in the televisual space either evolve or dissolve over the next 10 years?

I would love my own personal presenter too. But I have this other feeling we might get a visual version of the “audio filters” on company telephones. Depending on what we want to watch or do, we might get this pleasant robotic little avatar who after welcoming us, and telling us how much they value our involvement, directs us to “select 1” if we want to do this, or “select 20” and so on. And if we’re having problems, there’s the feedback blog online.

(1) I’m referring here to the work of social theorist Anthony Giddens, and media theorist Sean Moores who examine the ways social relationships and trust are manufactured in modern systems and organizations “separated in time and space”.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>“Presenters” and the idea of “social media intermediaries” raise the central issue of “trust” and what this might mean for our future televisual environments.</p>
<p>From the media studies perspective, presenters like Attenborough, who subscribe to transparent professional and ethical codes of practice like the ones outlined here, can be viewed as  “mechanisms of trust” (1), adopted by broadcasters to facilitate a relationship between their service and the remote viewer. In the conventional viewing context, the  “presenter” thus becomes a “fictive presence” providing a sense of legitimacy, connection, and intimacy with their audience. And as a result audiences build a sense of trust with the production/broadcasting brand.</p>
<p>But can the traditional media organization trust the audience? The conventional viewer relationship is of course being disrupted now that viewers/participators no longer have to accept a passive and “fictive” relationship with producers or media organizations. And programs are not “presented” in the same ways if they are interactive and multi-layered across various platforms. </p>
<p>I suppose the development of the “moderator” or “intermediary manager” roles is a form of “presenter” function and another “mechanism of trust’, which now has to accommodate, not only the professional codes of the organisation that pays for it, but also the relationships with the online audiences in their social/production space.</p>
<p>So I guess the question for me is how might “trust mechanisms” in the televisual space either evolve or dissolve over the next 10 years?</p>
<p>I would love my own personal presenter too. But I have this other feeling we might get a visual version of the “audio filters” on company telephones. Depending on what we want to watch or do, we might get this pleasant robotic little avatar who after welcoming us, and telling us how much they value our involvement, directs us to “select 1” if we want to do this, or “select 20” and so on. And if we’re having problems, there’s the feedback blog online.</p>
<p>(1) I’m referring here to the work of social theorist Anthony Giddens, and media theorist Sean Moores who examine the ways social relationships and trust are manufactured in modern systems and organizations “separated in time and space”.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: andylj</title>
		<link>http://futureoftelevision.wordpress.com/2008/02/05/david-attenboroughs-ten-rules-for-television-presenters-apply-to-community-managers-too/#comment-5</link>
		<dc:creator>andylj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2008 01:33:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://futureoftelevision.wordpress.com/?p=9#comment-5</guid>
		<description>This whole notion of community managers might provide one pathway forwards for Public Broadcasting.   The idea of Public Broadcasting works best where it plays an equal role with Commercial bx-ing in a limited marketplace.   That&#039;s why digital poses some real conundrums for it:  its semi-monopoly is lost.   

The idea of community management would provide PBX with a means  of carrying independence, access, equity into the whole gamut of digital platforms.   The BBC is probably the only Public Broadcaster that will be able to originate large volumes of content for platforms globally, but there&#039;s no reason why a PBXer here should not act as a conduit to valuable information and entertainment worldwide.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This whole notion of community managers might provide one pathway forwards for Public Broadcasting.   The idea of Public Broadcasting works best where it plays an equal role with Commercial bx-ing in a limited marketplace.   That&#8217;s why digital poses some real conundrums for it:  its semi-monopoly is lost.   </p>
<p>The idea of community management would provide PBX with a means  of carrying independence, access, equity into the whole gamut of digital platforms.   The BBC is probably the only Public Broadcaster that will be able to originate large volumes of content for platforms globally, but there&#8217;s no reason why a PBXer here should not act as a conduit to valuable information and entertainment worldwide.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
