Why wasn't Facebook invented at a J-school?

Facebook isn't journalism. It doesn't even try. But like other conversational/participative media, it's brimming with opportunity for journalism, for community-building, and for commerce.

Facebook came from a university setting and precisely targets a poorly met need in the general area of community and communications.

So why was Facebook created not inside a college of communications, but rather by a computer programmer who briefly attended Harvard?

I read an item today about how geeks at Arizona State have created a breakthrough in nanotech computer memory.

Where are the university-driven breakthroughs related to journalism?

Is it the students? Writing for the Knight-funded MediaShift Idea Lab project, Chris O'Brien says "advisers from colleges and universities of all shapes and sizes are frustrated at how resistant their students are to embrace new digital media tools and to collaborate with other media organizations on campus." Are J-students -- who, after all, chose to pursue journalism based on a set of assumptions about its nature and purpose -- stuck on an old-media worldview?

Or is it the faculty? Is the J-school culture overly focused on received wisdom rather than on discovery and invention? Are there too many bureaucratic impediments, or perhaps just no funding for experimentation?

Or is it the alumni? Are universities being steered away from creative opportunities by powerful, successful and generous benefactors who don't appreciate the crisis of change that faces journalism today?

Is it merely an overly narrow definition of the mission?

I don't know the answers. I'm just asking.

Admittedly, although the field isn't exactly crowded, it isn't bare. One of the more interesting university-based journalism research projects was the Readership Institute's work with newspapers.

I started examining Facebook through the lens of the institute's "high potential brand areas." Here's what I found:

Easy to read: Certainly Facebook comes out well on this score, compared with the average newspaper's cluttered, junky, in-your-face, ad-dominated website. Trivial content aside, the usual pings and remarks from your friends would score well on a Flesch test.

Intelligent, successful, experienced: That would pretty much depend on your friends. I have many who fit that bill, but your mileage may vary.

Informed, in the know: In some cases a social network may shine on this score, in other areas it may be poor. Facebook has 15,000 members in the Augusta, Ga., network, but I have yet to see a single interesting/informative posting on a local topic. The Neighborhoods application extends it down to my suburb (Evans, Ga.) and even to my subdivision, but I'm the only member from either of those. On the other hand, my Facebook network of new-media buds is definitely informed and in the know.

Honest, trustworthy, helpful: This is one area where all social networks and any well-run online community will shine, and it's also an area generally misunderstood by mainstream media. People bond with online communities for a host of highly personal reasons, and may of those reasons are utilitarian. Want advice? Just ask.

Think about how some of the other attributes apply, or don't apply, to Facebook and other new-media sites:

• Community leader, strong personality
• Middle class, neighborly
• Makes me think
• Reflects my beliefs, cares about me
• Fun, creative, energetic
• Belonging, fulfillment
• Can be used anywhere, anytime

And how do our "journalism" websites score on those measures?

• facebook
• innovation
• new media

• yelvington's blog
• Login to post comments