Integrating Film, Internet, Blogs & Open Source

I'm interested in trying to apply the principles of open source development to the process of producing The Echo Chamber documentary. So far, I've been using EchoChamberProject.com and its blog as the primary mediums to facilitate this integration.

I'd like share my thoughts for how the integration of the Internet and Filmmaking mediums could leverage the power of open source to find new methods to:

* Recruit volunteer help for post-production tasks
* Develop film content throughout the post-production process
* Recruit post-production expertise
* Market independent documentary films
* Create new economic competitive advantages through meaning creation
* Handle complexity and defy media logic
* Integrate objectivity and subjective judgments
* Reach new audiences

OPEN-SOURCE & VOLUNTEER POST-PRODUCTION TASKS
OPEN-SOURCE & CONTENT DEVELOPMENT
OPEN SOURCE TO RECRUIT POST-PRODUCTION EXPERTISE
OPEN SOURCE & NEW MARKETING OPPORTUNITIES
OPEN SOURCE & ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES OF MEANING CREATION
OPEN SOURCE TO HANDLE COMPLEXITY AND DEFY MEDIA LOGIC
OPEN SOURCE TO INTEGRATE OBJECTIVITY AND SUBJECTIVE JUDGMENTS
OPEN SOURCE TO REACH NEW AUDIENCES

OPEN-SOURCE & VOLUNTEER POST-PRODUCTION TASKS
So far, I have implemented open source principles to help with the post-production documentary filmmaking process by soliciting volunteers to help transcribe a number of The Echo Chamber interviews.

In October, Bartcop.com put out a call for volunteer transcribers for this project, and I was able to assign all 44 interviews to be transcribed in less than 24 hours.

So far I've loaded and sent out 31 interviews to the volunteers, and I've received 25 completed transcripts -- with 6 of those being proof read and posted online. These transcripts will be an invaluable resource throughout the editing process and will help with content development, post-production staff recruitment and marketing.

OPEN-SOURCE & CONTENT DEVELOPMENT
I am initially planning on open-sourcing the text of this project, but keeping the edited video and audio closed to advisors and staff. The concept of open source content development for a film seems more logistically and practicaly viable in the treatment and scripting phases.

So once I get all of the interviews transcribed and posted online, then I will be able to solicit feedback on structuring and editing the film from specialized experts. I should be able possible to recruit some enthusiastic advisors who are willing to read through all of the transcripts and who want to help shape the trajectory of this project.

I have already secured journalism professor Dr. Andrew R. Cline as an advisor -- He is willing to read through all of the transcripts and allow all of his feedback and comments to be published either on his own Rhetorica blog or at Echo Chamber Project's blog.

I plan on recruiting other advisors who can all provide their perspectives throughout the process of creating this open-source journalism project. Their insights could be initially documented on this blog, and then structured and organized into other educational resources that could be provided on this website.

I might even be able to receive feedback from the general public -- although the logistics of this may be difficult to structure and organize in an efficient manner.

The home base of The Echo Chamber may be in the basement of a log cabin in Maine, but the Global Village of the Internet will allow me to collaborate with people from all of the world. We'll see how well this concept can be implemented throughout the post-production of this investigative documentary project.

From the standpoint of how Blogging can help edit the film, I have noted previously that the Blogging medium has helped coalesce my arguments and thoughts on a number of different issues. This process of organizing these concepts will definitely help with editing the project.

Blogging also helps me brainstorm and overcome writers block -- it's very easy to convert blog entries into e-mail messages, press releases and other writings.

From a logistical perspective, the bottleneck to the open source content development process for this documentary has been proofreading and HTML coding the interview transcripts, which has taken over 4 hours per transcript.

It would have probably been a lot quicker to hire professional transcription service, but it would also be a lot more expensive. As the process of collaborative media production continues to develop, then these types of logistical issues can be worked out. Five-minute interview segments could be sent out electronically to 12 times as many volunteers. And there could be a transcript coordinator to recruit and correspond with volunteers as well as proof read, standardize, and post the completed transcripts.

OPEN SOURCE TO RECRUIT POST-PRODUCTION EXPERTISE
Making so much information about the project available online has helped me as I've been contacting various people for helping with the post-production process.

I've contacted a number of potential advisors, producers and funders, and it has been a valuable resource so far. It has helped people return my phone calls or respond to my e-mails when they might not have done so otherwise.

I've been able to secure a few solid commitments so far, and I'm confident that I should be able to recruit more of a foundation over the next couple of months.

This website and degree of transparency with this project will hopefully provide a significant difference in attracting a well-balanced and experienced support network of advisors and staff.

I may even be able to recruit volunteer lawyers, graphic designers, web designers, and other specialized volunteers who are willing to contribute their expertise to the project because they believe in the goals and concept of Democratizing the Media.

OPEN SOURCE & NEW MARKETING OPPORTUNITIES
Open-Sourcing the interviews and including so much research material on the pre-war Iraq time period has already helped get the word out to people in various circles. I've already started getting unsolicited e-mails about the project and people signing up to the e-mail list.

This website and blog is spreading the word and starting to build a personal audience that could help with an alternative distribution model down the road.

The site will continue to promote the film, establish a web presence, help with building a grassroots coalition and provide new opportunities for meaning creation.

OPEN SOURCE & ECONOMIC ADVANTAGES OF MEANING CREATION
If much of the film's content is open-sourced on the website, then what is the motivation for people to watch or buy the film?

The is already a trend of film audience members and news organizations who are publishing transcripts of political films online -- so it is probably going to happen anyway.

There is also such an overwhelming amount of information available on this site that most people will not have the time or patience to sift through all of it. Potential audience members will use the site during the Pre-Film Screening Phase to get enough information to make the decision as to whether or not to see the edited film version.

If the film's content is good enough, then the person will either read through a lot of material online or they'll just wait to see the film -- either way, they'll probably be eager to watch the film to see how it all flows together. The edited version of the film will contain a temporal juxtaposition of images, emotional tone and other non-verbal cues that will be lost from just reading the online text.

Afterwards, they'll probably follow up and read more on the site after they've seen the film. But the real value-added comes with watching the film with other people and learning from their insights during the post-film dialogues.

This film could be used as a community-building multimedia tool that brings people together for a common political purpose. Or it could also be used as a mediation tool that brings more understanding between friends and family with conflicting political perspectives. Either way, audiences will learn more about how the mainstream media filters information and shapes public consciousness.

People are also searching for emotionally significant experiences from their political involvement and from life in general -- These post-film dialogues could potentially provide the context for more meaningful and engaging life experiences -- whether it by venting frustrations with peers or by reducing conflict and building understanding with the political opposition.

The grassroots success of the docu-drama What the Bleep Do We Know!? was largely due to the desire for audience members to discuss the film with their friends and family because it challenges dominant paradigms of reality.

If The Echo Chamber can also successfully challenge dominant paradigms regarding the media and stimulate meaningful dialogue between individuals, then this is a competitive advantage that no other product is currently providing to the political market. If these dialogues are successful, then they also will serve as a very effective grassroots marketing technique.

OPEN SOURCE TO HANDLE COMPLEXITY AND DEFY MEDIA LOGIC
With nearly 40 hours of interview footage and another 35+ hours of pre-war media footage, I'm obviously going to have to cut a lot of information to parse this project down to a 90-minute film. So it'll be very difficult to comprehensively cover all of the journalistic and political issues within the constraints of the filmmaking medium.

For example, the nuanced details of how the media covered International Law are going to too complex and boring for the American culture to be included in this film at any extensive length -- This is one reason why the mainstream media failed to adequately cover the pre-war debates over International Law at the United Nations.

From an earlier blog post:

David Altheide’s wrote an article in the Politic Communication journal titled "Media Logic and Political Communication." He points out that politicians closely study the editorial practices of the electronic media, and then tailor their communications strategies in order to fit within this media logic. Commercial television drives the national political discourse, and commercial television is driven by popular culture.

Popular culture drives the demand for infotainment, and the media's production of infotainment drives the communications strategies of American politicians. Therefore, if an issue is too complex for the electronic media adequately cover, then the political communication strategists see this as a green light to make just about any wild claim that they want to -- no matter how deceptive or absurd.

The "He Said / She Said" objectivity standard ensures that biased partisans will always be able to push their point of view. The Internet and Blogging mediums could break this loophole of political deception by creating new opportunities for making meaning about complex issues.

By using this website and blog to supplement The Echo Chamber documentary, then I should be able to incorporate a politically contentious sound bite from an International Legal expert without having to go through his entire line of reasoning.

For example, George Washington University professor Sean Murphy made the following assertion in his interview with The Echo Chamber:

"With regard to the attitudes of other countries, certainly that was being reported in the media, but again it tended to be ‘The U.S. is saying this. France is saying that. We don't really know who's right or wrong, and therefore we've just laid it out for you.' When in fact, there were pretty compelling arguments, at least legal arguments, as to why the U.S. position was just wrong."

Murphy's claim that France had compelling legal arguments that the "U.S. position was just wrong" would be viewed as a politically contentious judgment by supporters of Operation Iraqi Freedom -- Even though Murphy is making a neutral legal judgment, questioning the legitimacy of war is unavoidably a political issue.

In fact, Murphy also claims:

"I would say that the vast majority of scholars in the field of international law would say that the justification asserted by the United States and its allies for invading Iraq is not regarded as being adequate under international law."

In order to make the argument that the media failed to adequately cover International Law, then a convincing legal and political argument needs to be made that the US legal justification was not "adequate under international law."

However, I discovered that it is next to impossible to only use the filmmaking medium to make a comprehensive argument that the US legal argument wasn't adequate. It's just too confusing -- too complicated -- and too boring to convincingly make a persuasive legal argument in the context of a three-minute film segment.

My first clue that it would be too difficult to defy traditional media logic was when Phyllis Bennis refused to answer a detailed legal question because she knew that I wouldn't use it in the edited film. And then Ruth Wedgwood refused to answer another legal question because she thought that it'd be too confusing for the audience to understand.

The Lesson: It is really difficult to defy traditional media logic by just using the film medium. But by also using the Internet and Blogging mediums, then journalists and filmmakers can use the principles of open source and transparency to supplement any politically contentious subjective judgments that they inevitably have to make.

OPEN SOURCE TO INTEGRATE OBJECTIVITY AND SUBJECTIVE JUDGMENTS
American journalism relies upon objective facts and subjective judgments from official government sources. If the Supreme Court makes a subjective legal judgment, then the American media reports this as an "objective fact" because it comes from an officially-sanctioned government institution.

The media can report on "Individual" subjective judgments because it is easily reducible to the "He Said / She Said" objectivity frame (i.e. Ken Wilber's Exterior-Individual Quadrant).

However, the media has a lot harder time reporting on the wide range of subjective judgments that come from non-institutional and decentralized collectives such as foreign countries, academic communities and the American people (i.e. Wilber's Interior-Collective Quadrant).

For example, there is no sovereign authority that oversees the United Nations -- nothing analogous to a Supreme Court. Therefore, there is no individual institution that can make a judgment over whether or not the war in Iraq was illegal under the UN Charter. The only reportable legal judgment could come from a consensus decision by the UN Security Council, which would obviously be vetoed by the US and UK.

Without an authoritative subjective legal judgment from an individual institution, then the American mainstream media doesn't cover the issue at all. The ethnocentric profit-based mentality causes the mainstream media to ignore the realities of subjective perceptions from entire European and Arab cultures. The American media has failed to systematically collect a sample of official "Collective-Subjective" legal opinions regarding the legitimacy of the war in Iraq -- Doing so would require that the journalist make a judgment of who to talk to and decide which side to favor by how the article or news segment was edited.

In trying to investigate the legitimacy of the US legal argument for the war in Iraq, I inductively gathered a number of credible judgments including: "the clear resistance of a majority Security Council Members in March 2003," Kofi Annan, Hans Blix, Richard Perle, Ruth Wedgwood, a Washington Post journalistic survey of International Lawyers, Sean Murphy's assessment of academic literature, and an informal survey of 4 to 5 more International Lawyers in Washington DC.

The only one who supported the US legal position was Ruth Wedgwood, and so I made a subjective judgment that the academic consensus was the US legal argument was not legitimate.

But I discovered the required standard of proof when I interviewed Cliff May from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

ECHO CHAMBER PROJECT: It seems to me from the international lawyers I’ve talked to, the overwhelming consensus is that the legal argumentation that the United States was putting forth was "strained."

CLIFF MAY: I think it’d be very difficult for you to quantify what international lawyers said. And I’m not sure -- and would I question how you did that. How many hundreds of international lawyers did you talk to in order to get that? But even if you did -- again --The way international law works is not that you take a survey of international lawyers, and the majority of international lawyers decide what international law is. International law is a lot muddier than that.

From this exchange, I determined that it may be impossible for journalists to ever objectively quantify any set of decentralized subjective judgments. Ken Wilber's Integral Model shows that this would require converting one sphere of reality to a totally different one -- converting a heterogeneous range of Collective-Subjective perceptions into an Individual-Objective fact.

What can be done is to at least attempt to report on a range of differing subjective perceptions that can have very real cultural effects.

What can also be done is if a critical mass of institutional subjective judgments support one side's subjective perception more than the other side, then a journalist should be free to make an informed judgment by either explicitly saying so or by implicitly structuring the argument so that one side wins.

This concept should work as long as this decision-making process is disclosed and has an element of transparency.

An audience member should free to come to should be able to come to a supplemental website and read more information about any potentially politically contentious judgment.

People are free to choose to defy the traditional media logic by coming to EchoChamberProject.com and reading the full interview with Sean Murphy and other confirming perspectives of UN experts James Paul and Phyllis Bennis. They can also read the dissenting viewpoints that were provided by International Law professor Ruth Wedgwood and think tank scholars Cliff May, Thomas Donnelly and Michael O'Hanlon.

I can also provide a set of links to articles that I used to base my editorial judgment. For example, I found Murphy's 179-page scholarly article "Assessing the Legality of Invading Iraq" to be more convincing than the material that Wedgwood provided to me -- including this article.

So hypertext linking and self-guided nature of the Internet and Blog mediums can serve as a more robust mechanism for filmmakers, bloggers, and journalists to investigate complex issues that the traditional mainstream media or filmmaking medium fails to adequately handle. This new media ecology overcomes the previous limitations of making subjective judgments because it diffuses the claims of political bias.

OPEN SOURCE TO REACH NEW AUDIENCES
The principles of Open Source could also potentially help in reaching new audiences who would not be ordinarily be drawn to watch a documentary that is probably going to be perceived to have an Anti-Bush or Anti-War Bias.

The Echo Chamber is primarily about the specific failures of the objective mainstream media leading up to the military intervention in Iraq. Since these failures have to do with not being skeptical or critical enough about the decision to go to war in Iraq, then this could also be perceived as a very emotionally charged and polarizing political judgment.

Ordinarily, this would mean that pro-liberation and pro-Bush supporters would not be drawn to see a film like this. Even though The Echo Chamber Hypothesis adequately predicts the behavior the media whenever there is a political consensus within Congress, titling this project The Echo Chamber serves more as a political hook to the core audience of progressives and liberals who already upset with how the media treated the build-up towards the war in Iraq.

However, the combination of open-source transparency and an Integral Approach to Journalism can potentially help bring in new audiences to a film that would ordinarily stay away.

All of the transcripts will be posted online so that many of the editing judgments that I make can be explained and supported with references to mainline news sources.

This will also provide a mechanism to receive and disseminate feedback that I receive from a wide variety of perspectives -- Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, Progressive, Pro-Bush, Anti-Bush, Pro-Liberation, Anti-War, etc. A true "Integral Journalism" would attempt to accurately understand and explain each perspective in order to stimulate a dialogue as opposed to debate.

Also, by opening an open-source window to the media production process, then dissident perspectives could potentially have an impact on the content of the final film -- My plan is to recruit some academic or professional advisors to serve as the dedicated dissident perspectives, but I hope to receive input from the general public if I can recruit the volunteer technical and logistical help to accomplish this.

There are probably many pro-Iraqi Liberation conservatives who share my vision of using a more consumer-based solution to evolving the culture and changing the market demand away from mindless entertainment that appeals to the most primitive human emotions.

If this film is successful, then it might send a signal to Hollywood and television producers to start producing more intellectually engaging and dialogue-stimulating entertainment.

By making the motivations and production process more transparent might also help build a coalition of grassroots organizations who believe in the purpose and message of the film.

Also, there are many aspects of the Open Source content development techniques this project that could appeal to a wide variety of demographics that beyond the core audiences of political news junkies, amateur media critics and foreign policy wonks.