Of course I was thrilled to come across Jeff Skoll’s TED talk and discover that the production house behind The Visitor and many other movies I’ve admired because of their social messages – including An Inconvenient Truth, Food, Inc., The Cove, and Syriana - was the Skoll-founded Participant Media!

Skoll’s motivation to produce such films is that we need to go beyond investing and connecting in good work. There is one more step: celebrating. And that’s what the films do – they celebrate the good work of good people; they make us realize that profound change can be instigated by average individuals…and then Participant makes sure we don’t have any excuse to NOT do something.

What makes Participant’s films different from other production houses that create comparable films is that the company’s involvement does not stop when the end credits start to roll. While the issue is still in the conscience of movie-goers, Participant strives to keep the momentum going. It does so by partnering with non-profit organizations and creating campaigns to further the message of the movie. So far, the effect of these campaigns have been felt at both the grassroots level and on Capitol Hill.

Example 1: The company paired The Soloist – based on a true story of a cellist who becomes schizophrenic and homeless – with a campaign to generate awareness about homelessness and mental illness. “The campaign works to humanize homelessness and de-stigmatize mental illness through a creative online/viral educational effort providing practical information, debunking common myths and highlighting local volunteer and donation opportunities.” The campaign includes suggestions of actionable items; a list of non-profit organizations that work with the homeless population and with people with mental illnesses; and even a Feed the Need challenge in partnership with Do Something.

Example 2: In his TED talk, Skoll talks about the release of North Country and Participant’s coinciding advocacy efforts – including screenings on the Hill – that helped ensure the renewal of the Violence Against Women Act.

The final, shining example of Participant’s impact: An Inconvenient Truth. Regardless of your views about global warming, it is undeniable that An Inconvenient Truth single-handedly brought the issue to the forefront of discussion. By emphasizing the individual’s ability to help prevent global warming, An Inconvenient Truth triggered a trend of behavioral changes that can be seen in the popularity of the carbon footprint calculator. Another indication of its influence: it has become mandatory viewing in some schools in England and Scotland.

Apart from attracting top-quality actors and creating content that is timely and relevant, Participant’s success is because of its unwavering commitment to making quality films with awesome story-telling (it had earned11 Oscar nominations by the end of its second year in business). The movies don’t lecture, but provide entertainment that resonates with the audience. Skoll realized how people react to others’ stories when they can relate to them and leverages the human connection to make change.

Social media networking tools such as Twitter, Facebook and Ning. have been touted as revolutionary when it comes to social change – and rightfully so. They can build niche communities of individuals who would never have met otherwise and they provide people who have something to say with an audience larger than they could have ever imagined just five years ago.

But are they making us lazy?

This is how it goes: A tweeter posts an article. Said article will provide insight to all the postee’s followers. Some of those followers may even pass the article on. The network of followers can go to bed slightly more informed than s/he was the day before and the original tweeter feels like s/he has done his/her share. I am a prime example. I made the decision to include the social vibe widget on this blog and I read about each of the issues I had to choose from so I could make an informed decision. And while I did not feel as if my contribution was comparable to volunteering at a shelter or writing to an elected official, I felt I had done something.

It allows me to be a passive contributor.

Of course this is a simplified assessment of how people use social media for change. Social media has so much potential and users have made a difference. There are many ways to keep track of our carbon footprints, thus keeping us accountable. President Obama’s campaign was proof that social media can generate the type of mass and momentum required to make small contributions take on a whole new meaning. Furthermore, charities anticipate to increasingly reap the benefits of using social media to attract “high-dollar” donors. And those who support many issues, but cannot financially contribute to each one, have organizations like Avaaz.org that use social media to circulate a variety of petitions that people can sign.

But my concern is that social media tools make us think change is easy to achieve, because the barrier to entry is so low. 100,000 more people discussing an issue is definitely a step forward and taking part in any discussion requires some degree of commitment. But if passive involvement in social issues has become the norm, where does action stand? Does active involvement become too much to ask?

And yes I realize the irony of my writing about this on a blog.

After coming back to the U.S., I promised myself  I would think about what I could do, . I had a lot of random thoughts, jotted down notes in the most un-methodical ways, and many poorly-made assumptions. And then I just lost momentum. I didn’t start this blog because I have any answer.

Which brings me to what I’m going to use this space for: To navigate the world of media and the community  of changemakers. I’ll explore intersections, highlight good work and *hopefully* contribute with ideas of my own. I started it as another way to find my inspiration and help me on my quest: how to make change through media.