Sometimes changes are so basic and world-changing that they can be difficult to recognize. Having just finished Losing the News by Alex S. Jones, I was reminded again just how difficult it seems to be for people in the news business to acknowledge the simple truth: the Internet has eliminated the need for mass media. Yes, professional journalism may still benefit society, but we no longer live in a world where citizens must necessarily depend on a select group of gatekeepers to funnel them information and news. This is the paradigm shift, and as long as it continues to go unrecognized, visions for the future of journalism will be fundamentally flawed.
Therefore, in the spirit of catharsis, in the simplest and most straightforward terms possible, I set forth four truths about the communications ecosystem created by the Internet.
Truth #1: We are all journalists now.
Journalism is no longer a profession; it’s an activity. To engage in journalism means to communicate factual information to a larger audience with the intent to inform. It is characterized not by objectivity, but intellectual honesty. As with art, the quality of journalism varies dramatically. Likewise, as with art, professionals and amateurs are differentiated merely by their ability to make a living selling their material, not by reference to standards or characteristics of their work.
When the cost of distributing information to the public was high, the ability to engage in journalism was extremely limited because it required a connection to a news organization. Now, anyone can write a story or create a video and publish it on the Web nearly instantaneously. Anyone can become a journalist with a few keystrokes.
Truth #2: The glory days of commercial mass media are over.
Now that anyone can be a news source, major news outlets face two new obstacles: unlimited competition and accountability. Traditionally, newspapers, magazines and broadcast networks competed amongst themselves for the attention of passive consumers. Today, news organizations face competition from a nearly infinite universe of information on the Web and, perhaps more importantly, they must battle the drastic rise in consumer control over what they read or watch. Unlike the experience of flipping channels or the pages of a newspaper, browsing the Internet gives consumers ultimate control over what type of information they access. They are no longer tethered to the finite set of articles chosen by the editors of the newspaper they pick up. Instead, they can switch from nytimes.com to the Drudge Report with a single click.
In addition to unprecedented competition for attention, news organizations are now also subject to the watchful eye of the blogosphere. For the first time, the Fourth Estate is being held accountable for shoddy and unethical reporting. They may not like the scrutiny, but as journalists should know all too well, holding those in power accountable for their actions is critical to a healthy democracy.
Truth #3: So-called news parasites are good for democracy.
Journalism is important to democracy because it is intended to educate the public and create a healthy public discourse about issues of the day. With that mission in mind, it is ironic that so many traditional journalists have deemed news aggregators and bloggers parasites.
In our media-saturated culture, news aggregators fulfill a critical filtering role to help consumers control information overload. Google News and other aggregation sites allow consumers to get news from as many sources as possible at one time. Obviously, this means that citizens are more informed and have access to more perspectives than they would if they went only to individual web sites. In terms of both autonomy (consumers get to decide what stories they read rather than relying on the choices of editors from a particular news source) and access to information, news aggregators are furthering the same mission of journalists.
Likewise, bloggers contribute to a healthy democracy by not only holding traditional news outlets accountable for their reporting, but also by providing a forum for citizens to engage in public debate and commentary about the issues of the day. The notion that discussing the news could somehow be parasitic is rooted in the perverse idea that news is a commodity that can be owned and controlled. It is difficult to imagine an idea more harmful to the First Amendment and the mission of journalism.
Truth #4: We need less nostalgia and more innovation.
Despite the proliferation of voices on the Internet, it is widely accepted that democracy benefits from the work of quality professional journalists. Serious investigative journalism takes time and money that most people do not have or are not willing to give. We depend on those who make a living doing journalism to help fill that void, especially at the local level where there are fewer non-profits and think tanks devoted to similar muckraking. But the question of whether that kind of serious journalism can be sustained commercially requires innovation, and nostalgia for the golden days of journalism isn’t getting us anywhere. As Clay Shirky has said, “‘You’re gonna miss us when we’re gone!’ has never been much of a business model.”
Don't get me wrong. I think you're spot-on when you declare mass media dead (or at least on death's door). I just wonder, perhaps idly, what we lose when we lose mass media.
For years, people read the same sources of news (or listened to them or watched them). That gave people a common base of information upon which they could build conversations.
The fractured media we have today has eroded that common base of information. We all sift through a flood of information every day, and everyone's experience is different. Will the death of mass media also mean the death of common ground?
Thanks for the comment, Michael. I think that's an interesting question. I guess my answer would be twofold:
1) I'm not sure it will really destroy the common ground. The viral nature of information on the Internet helps to ensure that a lot of people see the same videos and read the same news. (Just think of how many people saw that video of Susan Boyle singing on that reality show) Crowdsourcing and hyperlinking also help spread information on the Internet. Yochai Benkler has done a lot of interesting research in this area if you are interested.
2) There are some parts of the "common ground" created by the mass media that are actually not so good. It can be dangerous for a small group of elites deciding what news and perspective to give to the general public. In some ways, getting more information from more diverse sources is really a benefit of the Internet as opposed to one of its downfalls.
Great comment; it's definitely something to think about going forward. Thanks for writing!
One thing that doomed traditional journalism was the belief they had to "out" sources. Realistically only an absolute idiot would agree to be quoted complaining about their employer or numerous other retaliatory institutions. (What entity is not capable of retaliation?)
The old school journalism concept was that the source of
information had to be revealed in the article because people would evaluate the the possible truth by the "reputation" of the source. I don't think it made much sense as how would we know the reputation of millions of people? and much of the
information should be able to stand or fall on its own.
For example if one gives a logical argument and/or source of evidence to back up one's opinions, that should be capable of being evaluated without knowledge of who is saying it. Traditional media really took advantage of people by putting their names and other information such as age in articles. Why should someone talk to a reporter and possibly end up getting fired _plus_ let the whole world in on their age?
I think it is great that with the ability of the internet just about anybody can write anything they want and in a way become a source for news. I am the first to admit I check the news headlines online before picking up a newspaper.
But how do we know who we can trust? We have relied on many newspapers and news sources for years to give us verifiable and non-biased information. These days though it seems as if so much of the news is not based on fact, but rather opinion. You might search for something online and find information on it, but how can you really know what is true, when theoretically I could post a "news" article with my own beliefs?
It's one of those things where only time will tell I suppose.
B. Lewis
Stairlift Helper
Post new comment