[the_pm]

...Good in Theory, Bad in Practice
April 19, 2001

Evolving technology has forced media entities to reevaluate their relationships with each other and with their audiences. The concept of media convergence is just as it sounds; it is the blurring of lines between the various established mediums of communication. The emergence of online technology has been the primary instigator of media evolution for three reasons. First, this new medium has a great deal of potential to reward traditional media entities who utilize it to its fullest extent. Second, those who choose not to use it properly or at all run the very real risk of being left behind in an extraordinarily competitive field. Last, online technology has done much to level the playing field in media, giving voice to individuals and institutions that would otherwise have no means of communicating their messages or opinions for others to hear.

Online technology recently hit its first glass ceiling. Employers of new technology raced full speed to implement every last innovation into their corporate structures. When the dust from the first wave settled, media worldwide came to the sobering realization that as good as it all looked, even with online access on the rise amongst the general public, the Internet at this point was a money pit, a necessary evil in the race to keep up with the Joneses. Out of nowhere, a disparity emerged between the rate that technology was developing and the willingness for media (and investors) to embrace it. "Banner advertising" became a dirty phrase, and dot.com companies, which up until that point had been the bastions of free enterprise, found themselves sinking like stones in an ocean of traditional spending values, which stated loud and clear that the average consumer was not going to tolerate being left behind in a technological dust cloud by the product and service suppliers who were so eager to let go of the reins on the e-bandwagon.

The effects of consumer backlash have been swift and have not subsided as of yet. End users love the idea of having unparalleled access to information, but they are not willing to foot the bill. Therefore, media enterprises that do not make themselves available in the online environment risk losing a significant portion of their audience. Those that do make themselves available risk losing a great deal of money in trying to sate the audience members' appetites. On top of that, media companies have created a non-maintainable precedent, spoiling their investors with 20%+ growth margins in the late 1990s. Any company that backs off such unrealistic goals loses support and capital making it a less effective media entity. Since reducing or not having an e-presence is not an option, cutbacks have come in staffing, forcing employees with specialized skills (reporters, photographers, editors, etc.) to take on unmanageable workloads, reducing the quality of news gathering and dissemination and burning them out in the process.

Media convergence, taken at its face value, shows a great deal of foresight on the part of members of the industry. It is right to predict that media entities cannot and will not survive unless they grow and evolve with technology. The industry is simply not prepared for such a gargantuan task, and people in management positions within it have been pushing the limits of their resources almost to the point of self-extinction. Deregulation has broadened the disparity between the have and have-nots. The intent of deregulation has always been to encourage competition within the marketplace. Contrary to this intent, the result has been a trend towards monopolistic holdings amongst major media conglomerates. Competition is the check and balance system of commerce. As long as there is a competing entity in a market offering similar services, prices will we kept reasonable. As long as enforceable legislation which prohibits price setting is in place, consumers can feel confident that their interests are being looked after, and investors will feel equal confidence in their holdings. Now, a very small number of media corporations control nearly the entire consumption of news and entertainment media. The marketplace is volatile, and unreasonable expectations have been nurtured in investors, setting up the foundation for plummeting confidence in both investors and consumers of media.

Nobody wants to give control back to the government, and free enterprise, which in this manifestation is more aptly referred to as reckless enterprise, has eroded the integrity of information outlets. A very legitimate question has been raised in light of the current evolution of media convergence: if media are the watchdogs of government/society, who is watching the watchdogs? The abysmally disappointing answer that has been given is "the public." It is not clear when this task became the responsibility of media consumers, but there are two significant reasons why this system will not work. First, the relationship of government and media was originally created specifically so consumers of media messages could be confident in the product they were receiving, and placing the responsibility for monitoring quality of the content received on the receiver is grossly unfair. Second, "the public" is intellectually unequipped for such an undertaking. At best, academicians and thoroughly self-educated citizens may be the only ones with enough savvy to filter out the biases and inaccuracies from the meaningful information.

By passing the buck in this way, media entities have justified the overbearing subjectivity and sensationalistic nature of the news, blaming the public for not knowing any better. The only response has been from the few scholars and the self-created intellectual elite who have been quick to criticize the quality and relevance of the information given. Solutions have been hard to come by (admittedly they are difficult to formulate) and nearly impossible to implement.

One solution presents itself in two parts, neither of which is effective without the other and one half of which would be very unpopular with businesspeople of media. First, revert to regulating media holdings. Antitrust laws were originally enacted because, as the word implies, there is an inherent mistrust that goes along with the domination of an industry by one or two corporations. The FCC made the decision to allow cross-media ownership in markets of any size, sharply limiting the number of voices and perspectives feeding information to consumers. In essence, reversing this would mean corporate conglomerates would have to sell many of their holdings to smaller companies, start-up corporations and possibly even communities. An immediate impact would be felt by investors and Wall Street, scaring consumers and causing a great deal of backlash from both. This effect, while poignant, would be temporary, and with so many more media companies vying for listeners, readers and viewers, the quality of news and entertainment would have to increase to be competitive.

The second part of the solution is much more viable and has already been implemented in select areas of the nation. It is imperative that media consumers be educated in how to properly ingest and think critically about media information. Sadly, there are a great number of citizens such measures would not reach; however, teaching media literacy in middle schools and high schools and offering such coursework to the general student body in universities could so radically change the way future generations internalize information that regulation would have to follow.

This argument comes full circle back to the topic of media convergence when one realizes that breaking down media into controllable units will force the industry to be more careful and responsible in how it utilizes emerging technology. Investors will have to learn to live with reasonable profit margins, and members of the media workforce can multitask without the pressure of national and global corporate weight on their shoulders. Free market enterprise cannot be treated as the extreme; it is a balance of appropriate legislation and competitive spirit. The result is a unified approach to media evolution that best serves the interests of businesses and the people.

Paul Hirsch

**********

Paul Hirsch is one of the site administrators for IWDN and a partner/owner of Equentity, LLC.

[the_pm]

Indeed it is imho. That's why many of the analysts who predicted how it would go based upon exprience with other media got it so wrong. A lot of people lost a lot of money based upon that attitude imho.

The technology is quite unlike any other media we've ever seen, but when I ask if the Internet is any different, I'm wondering if it is an exception to the normal media cycle, or whether it will go through it like all other forms, just in its own unique way. I'm betting on the latter. The same cycle goes for radio, the movie industry, even book publishers. The Internet is still a form of distributing and comsuming information. Its interactive mechanisms makes it unique from all other media forms, but I don't think it's immune to its own nature. In fact, one might say the Internet is the perfect medium. It combines print publishing, entertainment, TV, radio, etc. into one grand network. The technology may be revolutionary, but the Internet itself is basically a huge imitation of many things that already exist. When history looks at the Net, it will see most of the same patterns as for all other media too. That's just my prediction.

[ethicaldesign]

Quoting the_pm:

The technology is quite unlike any other media we've ever seen, but when I ask if the Internet is any different, I'm wondering if it is an exception to the normal media cycle, or whether it will go through it like all other forms, just in its own unique way. I'm betting on the latter. The same cycle goes for radio, the movie industry, even book publishers. The Internet is still a form of distributing and comsuming information. Its interactive mechanisms makes it unique from all other media forms, but I don't think it's immune to its own nature. In fact, one might say the Internet is the perfect medium. It combines print publishing, entertainment, TV, radio, etc. into one grand network. The technology may be revolutionary, but the Internet itself is basically a huge imitation of many things that already exist. When history looks at the Net, it will see most of the same patterns as for all other media too. That's just my prediction.

I have kind of a different way of looking at it (it's bigest and most striking difference being that it's far more participatory and free of constraints of various types inherrent in other media so I'd be wary of looking at it in a top-down way like you could for the other outlets you mention) , but I guess only time will tell

Your article you linked is interesting (and really well written) but there a few points I'd disagree with in there aswell. The main one being that far from reducing the quality of news, there have been significant improvements (if not from the old media outlets which is what you are pointing to there). There is a lot more crap out there now aswell, so filtering the good from the bad is a job in itself aswell open to personal interpretation, but certainly I think the internet has been good for helping people to see through mainstream media bias and adgenda setting (even if in most cases that's only become possible because they've been looking at another set of bias and adgenda setting from another perspective). I could ramble on about this for ages though and have loads of work to do today so I'll try to resist.

Have you thought about trying to get your writing syndicated? Although I mightn't agree with some of the issues you talk about in that particular article (amongst those I do), the writing style is still good. If you're planning to write more articles for IWDN that might be something you might like to look at. Would help to raise your profile as the author aswell as the IWDN site, and provide wider coverage in other outlets.

[the_pm]

The main one being that far from reducing the quality of news, there have been significant improvements (if not from the old media outlets which is what you are pointing to there).

My point there is that the quality of news in traditional media is at an all-time low. Whether that's because we are simply too sensationalistic and ad-driven, or whether it was always so-so, but we've become better at exposing journalistic failure, the point is that low quality news is a recognized trait of major media today. I'm happy to give examples, but I don't think I really need to at this point. CBS alone could rest my case, but there's plenty more fault to go around!

The Internet is a grand way to get your news. The problem is that online news is chaotic, and no one bothered to create a system to help corral the chaos before it went so out of control (indeed, who thought it would ever come to this point?). Our valuable news sources have shifted from major news networks to site such as Drudge and Snopes. Ok, raise your hand if you believe the majority of what you read on Snopes. My hand is raised, I hate to admit. So, why do you believe it? Because it sounds plausible? I guarantee you I can write plausible BS - hell, I majored in plausible BS most of my academic life The best you can do is gather as much information from as many sources as possible, see where they overlap and where they disagree, and try to extract the truth from what you're given. That would be bringing order to the chaos.

But realistically, few individuals have time to do that, and no mechanism was created that facilitates people doing this efficiently. Search engines come close. At least they try to bring you the information you need to form an educated view of reality. But there's little else they do except to spew back that for which they believe you are looking. Making the mess coherent is still the responsibility of the individual, and it's a heinously unfair burden to place on the public, especially when they are so poorly equipped to filter for themselves (media awareness classes should begin at an early age and should be mandatory through the end of secondary education).

Blah blah blah - ok, I'm end this little rant now

Have you thought about trying to get your writing syndicated? Although I mightn't agree with some of the issues you talk about in that particular article (amongst those I do), the writing style is still good. If you're planning to write more articles for IWDN that might be something you might like to look at. Would help to raise your profile as the author aswell as the IWDN site, and provide wider coverage in other outlets.

Thank you very much for the compliment I actually never thought of trying to get myself published outside of my own little avenues. I never really thought enough people would care to make it worth someone else's time to publish it...

[ethicaldesign]

Quoting the_pm:

My point there is that the quality of news in traditional media is at an all-time low. Whether that's because we are simply too sensationalistic and ad-driven, or whether it was always so-so, but we've become better at exposing journalistic failure, the point is that low quality news is a recognized trait of major media today. I'm happy to give examples, but I don't think I really need to at this point. CBS alone could rest my case, but there's plenty more fault to go around!

Yes, I see your point. In the UK we appear (at least by comparison) to have braver and more open coverage even in the most meanstream organisations (BBC being a prime example recently although undoubtedly they get it wrong aswell sometimes).

I do wonder however whether at least one of the main reasons why the shortcomings of old-style mainstream media is becomming more apparent to more people now is because of news dissemination and oppinion on the internet giving them something to contrast mainstream coverage to. A situation that hasn't until now existed to such a degree.

Criticisms leveled at mainstream media (often quite genuine and unarguable criticisms concerning adgenda setting in particular that can be bourne out through basic statistics) have been around for a long time, it's just that outside a few accademics, journalists and intellectuals such failings were not so apparent. People like Noam Chomsky for example have been going on for years about many of these criticisms that are being levelled more widely against mainstream media now by the wider public.

You point out that :

the point is that low quality news is a recognized trait of major media today.

The operative word there is Recognised. Looking back over mainstream news over the last couple of decades, I don't think it was any better then either. It's just that more people recognise it for what it is now.

The Internet is a grand way to get your news. The problem is that online news is chaotic, and no one bothered to create a system to help corral the chaos before it went so out of control (indeed, who thought it would ever come to this point?).

The problem with coralling news is that it would quickly fall into the same problems that are levelled at mainstream news distribution (adgenda setting, self-censorship, political bias by the controllers, commercial self-interest - all of the same problems that you would probably identify with current mainstream news outlets). Already we have large organisations corraling news in the way you talk about who have internet outlets (all of the major newspapers for example), and it is precisely them that much of the criticism is leveled at.

The world IS chaotic, news comes from a variety of disparate sources, often from conflicting viewpoints. I think it's healthy to see that in all it's glory myself even if it is harder to filter on an individual level (to begin with at least) because it is at least the individuals own filter that decides what to accept and not those of some higher entity (particularly when that higher entity might be corporate in nature and even setting aside political bias might have sound business/financial reasons for setting the adgenda and puting its own slant on coverage).

Our valuable news sources have shifted from major news networks to site such as Drudge and Snopes. Ok, raise your hand if you believe the majority of what you read on Snopes. My hand is raised, I hate to admit. So, why do you believe it? Because it sounds plausible? I guarantee you I can write plausible BS - hell, I majored in plausible BS most of my academic life The best you can do is gather as much information from as many sources as possible, see where they overlap and where they disagree, and try to extract the truth from what you're given. That would be bringing order to the chaos.

I completely agree. I think there's a danger of relying on any one news source for information. I also recognise that to make any sense out of the chaos as individuals, we need to be aware of it and see all sides. This is one area where I think online media by its very nature as an interactive medium that encourages participation, does a far better job of that than of say a Rupert Murdoch owned newspaper, where there is by the very nature of an organisation like that going to be self-censoring going on, adgenda setting and commercial self-interest problems (appeasing advertisers and business interests for example).

But realistically, few individuals have time to do that, and no mechanism was created that facilitates people doing this efficiently. Search engines come close.

Wow! You really need to start doing a bit more searching/reading. There are absolutely vast numbers of people getting involved in news gathering, writing opinion, discussion, building the tools and infrastructure for participatory and interactive news coverage and dissemnination.

One good example on a global scale is perhaps indymedia. Whether you agree with the general tone there or not, you have to agree that it's an interesting model. There are literally thousands upon thousands of alternative media sites out there, ranging from individuals running blogs, to quasi-commercial concerns, right up to global non-profit organisations like indymedia. The internet has also spawned a massive growth in media watchdogs, and sources of information that try to educate the public about the media.

A LOT of people spend a LOT of time and expend a LOT of effort, and this movement is growing expotentially. Public participation in news gathering, commentary and dissemination is happening on a scale now never before seen (this is why we are starting to see newspaper articles and television reports about how much newspapers amongst others are worried).

An increasing number of mainstream media stories nowadays originate from such sources.

I guarantee that if you spend a year or two regularly reading alternative media and at the same time watching events unfold in mainstream media, it'll give you a very clear picture of the failings of mainstream old-style media and how these new forms are already surpassing it, not only in terms of reporting and speed, but also in terms of predicting future events.

The biggest problem reading such sites is that because nobody is doing the filtering for you, you need to learn how to do it yourself and that takes time (but is within the grasp of everyone but the sub-normal imho). My approach is basically to try to consider everything but believe nothing. This might sound odd, but after you've done this for a couple of years you start to become very aware of the filters that are already in place before news gets to you through mainstream chanels, and what those filters are, and how much better with a bit of thought you can actually build your own filters based not upon politics or commercial interest, but upon a historical perspective of what has and hasn't turned out to be the case and judging by the spin that certain outlets put on stories in the past and the spin they're putting on new but related stories in the present. You also come to realise that there are really no definitively trustworthy sources of news anywhere you look. Hence the consider everything, belive nothing attitude. What you loose in belief you more than make up for in being able to draw your own conclusions from raw information (which is afterall all the media conglomerates are doing in the first place - only from their own way of looking at things rather than your own).

At least they try to bring you the information you need to form an educated view of reality. But there's little else they do except to spew back that for which they believe you are looking. Making the mess coherent is still the responsibility of the individual, and it's a heinously unfair burden to place on the public, especially when they are so poorly equipped to filter for themselves (media awareness classes should begin at an early age and should be mandatory through the end of secondary education).

That's quite an elitist way of looking at things I think, as it assumes that people don't have the intelligence to make up their own minds. You might be right about that on many levels, but perhaps part of the problem might be that they haven't being encouraged to think for themselves or been given the tools and opportunity to do so up until now.

I think it's wrong to consider the demand that someone think for themselves as some unfair burden.

Blah blah blah - ok, I'm end this little rant now

Me too. Hoping you don't reply to this because I'll only be tempted to reply again and so on.... then I'll be sitting here at 2 in the morning thinking (oh crap...I haven't got much work done today)

Thank you very much for the compliment I actually never thought of trying to get myself published outside of my own little avenues. I never really thought enough people would care to make it worth someone else's time to publish it...

You should give it a try seriously. A lot of websites out there are crying out for fresh content, and most will provide a link to you as the author and a link to your site in the credits.

There are a few online directories that deal with exactly this (I've got a few bookmarked somewhere if you're interested), though I would personally try going for some of the bigger sites directly myself (sitepoint and sites like that first perhaps).

[the_pm]

That's quite an elitist way of looking at things I think, as it assumes that people don't have the intelligence to make up their own minds. You might be right about that on many levels, but perhaps part of the problem might be that they haven't being encouraged to think for themselves or been given the tools and opportunity to do so up until now.

I think it's wrong to consider the demand that someone think for themselves as some unfair burden.

Not at all - I make no assumptions about people's intelligence. I make many claims about the educational system's inability to prepare people to digest media intelligently. I consider myself a fairly intelligent person, and I can't speak any language other than English. I wouldn't consider it elitist if you told me I was poorly equipped to converse with someone in Swahili - I'd say you're right!

The operative word there is Recognised. Looking back over mainstream news over the last couple of decades, I don't think it was any better then either. It's just that more people recognise it for what it is now.

Indeed, perception is 90% of reality. We'll never know for sure how accurate media were historically, but we must recognize the problem as ours to deal with today, not yesterday's to lament. (I know you're not lamenting - that's just a general comment )

The world IS chaotic, news comes from a variety of disparate sources, often from conflicting viewpoints.

And it is our ability and determination to make sense out of that chaos that gives the world a very necessary, if not fragile balance, which becomes more fragile everyday as the task of creating order becomes less realistic. I'm not suggesting we try to organize the entire world, just that the natural need to make sense out of chaos needs to be fulfilled in order to keep it from spinning out of control. It's become harder than ever to do that, and we fed that monster. I'm all for feeding it more, but there has to be some effort to equip people to handle the changing information environment. Hence my call for the right type of education.

Wow! You really need to start doing a bit more searching/reading. There are absolutely vast numbers of people getting involved in news gathering, writing opinion, discussion, building the tools and infrastructure for participatory and interactive news coverage and dissemnination.

I see these people producing an increasing number of varied viewpoints, but little attempt at making them easily digestable in any meaningful way. That's the nature of information. You can get a glimpse by reading a variety of nut graphs about one subject. Some public opinion polls might serve a little value. But by-and-large, there is so much news generated that can be reported subjectively, that you'd go crazy trying to sort it all out for yourself! And please point me to a mechanism that can do this effectively - I don't even know what that algorithm might look like talked out on paper.

You should give it a try seriously. A lot of websites out there are crying out for fresh content, and most will provide a link to you as the author and a link to your site in the credits.

I might just try my luck at that. Of course, it means reentering the research world and spending my precious time writing scholarly articles, when I could be on here yapping with my e-pals

Me too. Hoping you don't reply to this because I'll only be tempted to reply again and so on.... then I'll be sitting here at 2 in the morning thinking (oh crap...I haven't got much work done today)

Sorry - no such luck. Not to mention, knowing someone's screen resolution tells you nothing about their browsing habits...oh nevermind

(inside j/k)

[ethicaldesign]

Quoting the_pm:

Not at all - I make no assumptions about people's intelligence. I make many claims about the educational system's inability to prepare people to digest media intelligently. I consider myself a fairly intelligent person, and I can't speak any language other than English. I wouldn't consider it elitist if you told me I was poorly equipped to converse with someone in Swahili - I'd say you're right!

That's fair enough (forgive me for the misunderstanding).

It does then beg the question however, that if the majority have the necessary intelligence to work things out for themselves, then why might it be considered such an unreasonable burden for them to do that, to such a degree that it should be taken out of their hands and put in the hands of a minority as you suggest?

What is the criteria by which that minority is considered the best suited to handle that function on the behalf of the masses?

If it is not that they are considered more intelligent than the masses, then perhaps it is simply because they have been officially trained to digest, analyse and present that information? This begs the questions of what sort of bias might be inherrent in that teaching and whether that might pose a problem in itself? and if not, couldn't that training be gained by anyone who is interested themselves through their own efforts?

And perhaps one of the most important questions is, if this function is concentrated into the hands of a minority, what sort of influence would the organisational culture in which this minority operate have upon their interpretation, and how might they as individuals progress (or not progress) within those organisations (therefor and perhaps most importantly shape the organisations future evolution and direction) based upon their interpretations in relation to that culture if they are to exist within it?

I see your point about it not being elitist to simply recognise people's (and indeed one's own) ignorance. Ignorance afterall is a different thing to stupidity, and recognition of ones ingnorance a precondition of learning.

I just tend to think that by taking that ability of interpretation out of the hands of the many (a function which is only possible with access to diverse sources of raw information and conflicting opinion) and corraling it in the way you suggest and thereby concentrating that information gathering, interpretation and presentation into the hands of the few, it is more likely to encourage continued ingnorance in the many, rather than encouraging the genuine effort of thinking for oneself that might come about more if everyone were presented with less filtered and controlled information.

This seems like a simple enough proposition to me. Afterall, if you present someone who doesn't generally think for themselves with the facts and tell them and succesfully instill in them a feeling that they can 'trust' you, then how likely are they to think about what you're telling them. A lot of them will just uncritically accept your reasoning without any investment of thought (that much is apparent).

Conversely present the same people with two or more completely conflicting points of view and present each of them as the facts according to someone, and let them realise that they can't really trust any single source of information entirely, and they will immediately be forced to think for themselves (or think 'f*ck this for a game of soldiers, I'm going back to watch reality gameshows, gardening and home decoration programs' - which is a distinct and worrying possibility it has to be said).

By taking that out of their hands and spoonfeeding them pre-filtered information rather than giving them the tools and encouragement to work things out for themselves, that seems to me like elitism on some levels (if not in intention, certainly in practice). For what you would ultimately end up with is an informational and intellectual elite who are privy to the raw information and the tools to interpret and present it in the way they deem fit, and human nature being what it is it wouldn't be long before that was turned to their own advantage and their interpretations and even the information they choose to report (adgenda setting) influenced by self-interest. These are some of the very criticisms that are being increasingly leveled at mainstream traditional media already ofcourse.

I don't single out only traditional media for that either. A fair proportion of alternative media is just as guilty of bias and adgenda setting as far as I can see. It's just that seeing many sides to something provides a clearer picture of what might be the reality imho.

Whether or not you can really blame the education system for not teaching you swahilli, or whether you should be blamed yourself for not getting off your backside and learning swahilli (if it is of interest to you), I'm not really sure though. Certainly if we're not talking about swahilli but about understanding the media (which I think you were using that similie) then there's already ample information out there for anyone with the time and interest to learn about it themselves.

Schools and universities aren't the only place one can learn. I've probably learned many times more outside of university than I did while I was there, entirely off my own back. A good education won't teach people to pass exams imho. It'll teach them how to learn on their own and think for themselves.

Certainly there is the information out there on the internet for people to learn about the media if they want to, and to get access to alternative sources of information now and make their own minds up in a way that sets the internet apart from other traditional forms of media distribution.

Indeed, perception is 90% of reality. We'll never know for sure how accurate media were historically, but we must recognize the problem as ours to deal with today, not yesterday's to lament. (I know you're not lamenting - that's just a general comment )

Yes, I'm not really wasting time complaining about the way media is historically (though I think it's important to consider the perspective the past gives us in looking at the present and to the future - to fail to do that is very dangerous as anyone who has read orwell would probably recognise).

I do tend to think that we can learn a lot from looking back at how the media (in particular certain organisations) have faired reporting from a historical perspective though. Retrospective analysis is very important imho, particularly where the media is concerned.

This isn't really my main point though. Just pointing out that I don't think it's really getting that much worse. I don't think it's ever been that much better in recent history at least.

May have been better for the people who are involved directly in traditional media perhaps in the past, but not necessarily the coverage or for the public. I know in your article you cover this from the insiders perspective of the journalist working in traditional media and how it has effected them in one paragraph, but the phrase that sprung to mind when I read that was perhaps that it was simply because they were 'flogging a dead horse' that they were having to endure such hardships.

As I say, time will tell

You never know, this flash movie might be right and in 10 years I might be reading the Times in print and be sitting here complaining about how bad online media is. I doubt it, but as I said, you never really know.

And it is our ability and determination to make sense out of that chaos that gives the world a very necessary, if not fragile balance, which becomes more fragile everyday as the task of creating order becomes less realistic. I'm not suggesting we try to organize the entire world, just that the natural need to make sense out of chaos needs to be fulfilled in order to keep it from spinning out of control. It's become harder than ever to do that, and we fed that monster. I'm all for feeding it more, but there has to be some effort to equip people to handle the changing information environment. Hence my call for the right type of education.

Ahh... the old "aneristic illusion"

Yes I'd be all for media education I tend to look upon the internet providing that in a way that hasn't ever before been possible though.

I think perhaps a lot of the fragility that you're talking about however doesn't so much come from a more diverse set of news coverage or opinion, but more from a lack of investment in understanding the issues at all, and an increasing amount of time being spent on mindless entertainment, much of it quite stagnating on a number of levels. But that's another discussion.

I see these people producing an increasing number of varied viewpoints, but little attempt at making them easily digestable in any meaningful way. That's the nature of information. You can get a glimpse by reading a variety of nut graphs about one subject. Some public opinion polls might serve a little value. But by-and-large, there is so much news generated that can be reported subjectively, that you'd go crazy trying to sort it all out for yourself! And please point me to a mechanism that can do this effectively - I don't even know what that algorithm might look like talked out on paper.

That's precisely what I'm saying really. That there is no definitive source of truth. Most things are subjective where news coverage is concerned. Recognising that fact is the first step to being able to filter things for oneself.

One won't go crazy trying to do that themselves as far as I can see. Afterall, if that were true, who are these supermen who you would have work in the media corralling information like you suggest on our behalf? Would they not go crazy aswell?

I might just try my luck at that. Of course, it means reentering the research world and spending my precious time writing scholarly articles, when I could be on here yapping with my e-pals

If that was a past article that you've written perhaps you have more that you could send out? If you're going to be writing articles for this site already, then they might perhaps be a candidate (other authors being in agreement).

That approach seems like a great way to get information out to more people and also a good and free (considering they might be written anyway) promotional method. Ofcourse I guess you have to weigh that against having completely unique content on this site or wherever else you might publish them yourself.

Maybe worth thinking about though. Particularly in these early stages because if you could get a few articles out there onto big sites like sitepoint with links here it would probably bring in a lot of people.

Sorry - no such luck. Not to mention, knowing someone's screen resolution tells you nothing about their browsing habits...oh nevermind

(inside j/k)

Oh no...Lets not go there again (I was trying at every stage to get out of that one but you just kept provoking me to reply ).

This conversation I do find far more interesting though (no offence meant about our chat about the other thing btw- just that this is a far more worthy and interesting subject of discussion - one that I wish I could spend more time on but I really must get on with some work now - another couple of hours and I'll be at that 2am predicament that I was talking about which I really can't afford to find myself in at the moment).

[the_pm]

Ahh...this will require proper digesting and an equally insightful response, both of which cannot happen at the moment, but will come in good time

Of course, if anyone else wants to jump into the frey, feel free. This doesn't have to be a spectator sport!

[the_pm]

Wow - I just spent an hour writing my response. I went to save it to my clipboard, but instead of hitting Ctrl-A to select all, I slipped and hit Ctrl-W, close window. Stupid f****** keyboard shortcuts. Ok, I'm going to regroup and tackle this again later.

And it was such a good response too

/the_pm kicks himself in the head repeatedly for having fat fingers.

[the_pm]

Ok - this doesn't even come close to what I wrote the first time and accidently deleted. But it will have to do...

It does then beg the question however, that if the majority have the necessary intelligence to work things out for themselves, then why might it be considered such an unreasonable burden for them to do that, to such a degree that it should be taken out of their hands and put in the hands of a minority as you suggest?

There's a difference between having the capacity to understand something and being equipped to understand something. A computer with a large hard drive and a lot of RAM has the necessary "intelligence" to run a piece of software, but will be unable to do so until it has been installed onto it. I'm not trying to equate human intelligence to that of a machine, only trying to use a suitable analogy to highlight the importance of raising the level of awareness of how media function, the impact they have on our lives and how to critically evaluate them.

The function of filtering should be in the hands of individuals. The function of equipping people to handle the task is the matter at hand!

I just tend to think that by taking that ability of interpretation out of the hands of the many (a function which is only possible with access to diverse sources of raw information and conflicting opinion) and corraling it in the way you suggest and thereby concentrating that information gathering, interpretation and presentation into the hands of the few, it is more likely to encourage continued ingnorance in the many, rather than encouraging the genuine effort of thinking for oneself that might come about more if everyone were presented with less filtered and controlled information.

This is what the Media History video proposed - that GoogleZon would devise an algorithm that could rewrite the news to suit each individual, based on the reports of many. That takes my idea much farther than I ever intended it to go. My thinking is that there must be a more efficient way for the information consumer to gather and sector news as reported/interpreted by multiple sources, then critically analyze what he or she reads. It's the ability to critically analyze that is inherently learned by the few who care and disregarded by those who don't. So, is it their fault/problem for not caring enough? Well...

Whether or not you can really blame the education system for not teaching you swahilli, or whether you should be blamed yourself for not getting off your backside and learning swahilli (if it is of interest to you), I'm not really sure though. Certainly if we're not talking about swahilli but about understanding the media (which I think you were using that similie) then there's already ample information out there for anyone with the time and interest to learn about it themselves.

...I certainly don't blame the education system for not teaching me Swahili, but if the education system didn't teach me how to read, or didn't insist that I learn math at least to the level of Trigonometry, I would, as a parent (which I am not) raise bloody hell. I believe media literacy/media awareness is as fundamental a skill as any of these, or at least as fundamental as other required topics, such as social studies or history. It's not just about being better consumers of news. It's about being more conscious about how we consume entertainment, advertising, public relations and all other forms of mass communication in which we spend the majority of our waking life immersed.

Schools and universities aren't the only place one can learn. I've probably learned many times more outside of university than I did while I was there, entirely off my own back. A good education won't teach people to pass exams imho. It'll teach them how to learn on their own and think for themselves.

Undoubtedly the best education one gets comes simply from living life and learning from life's lessons. But I do believe people as a whole will not take the time to be more conscientious consumers of media. We can point fingers at them and say it's their fault for not taking the initiative, but that doesn't even come close to solving the problem. If the problem was people coming out of school illiterate because no one was taught to read, the answer would be to make learning to read part of the curriculum. The problem is that people enter into a media-rich environment not prepared to think critically about the messages they receive. The answer is to equip them to do so. A kid might argue that he'll never need to know algebra once he gets out of school, but we teach it to him anyway and hold him accountable for his knowledge. A kid might argue that he doesn't need to learn about media, but I believe it is our responsibility to teach him anyway, and hold him accountable for how he consumes it in school and in real life.

Ahh... the old "aneristic illusion"

Order is the equivalent of truth; chaos is inherently false? No, I would never claim such a thing. But I will claim order makes it easier to extract truth and is the balance to the chaos that will inately exist regardless. I concede chaos. I don't concede the demise of order in its face.

That's precisely what I'm saying really. That there is no definitive source of truth. Most things are subjective where news coverage is concerned. Recognising that fact is the first step to being able to filter things for oneself.

There was a time when people actually believed media, journalists in particular, could be objective. I think as a whole we are starting to realize this is an impossibility. Humans reporting on the actions and nature of humanity cannot possibility do so objectively. But I think we're coming to realize this too slowly, in spite of the lack of guidance offered to us, not because of it. But once we're thoroughly disillusioned, then what? Do we all throw up our hands and say "I give up - I'll never know the truth?" Well, I'd wager a lot of people have done just that. Even faced with such confusion, people don't seek ways to critically approach the information they receive. They give up. Or they choose one source, call it the Truth for any or no particular reason, and stick by it because they need to know something's real, but don't know how to decipher everything they are being fed. If you have no choice but to drink from a firehose, the least we can do is help each other learn the best ways to do it. And anymore, if you choose not to drink, you run the very real risk of losing touch with what's happening in the world.

The answer, as I said in the article, is to give some control back to the government concerning the business of media (media monopoly regulation, to be precise), and install an educational process for consuming media at the same time. I believe this will help restore some much needed balance and catch people up so they can handle the breathtaking speed at which we are moving.

If that was a past article that you've written perhaps you have more that you could send out? If you're going to be writing articles for this site already, then they might perhaps be a candidate (other authors being in agreement).

Oh man; if I dig around enough, I can find dozens of papers, essays and articles I've written. Not many have anything to do with media or the Internet, and I'd need to read through them carefully to make sure they still make sense and I agree with them after all these years. But the idea is intriguing. Thanks for the advice

I was trying at every stage to get out of that one but you just kept provoking me to reply

That's my M.O. Always trying to start something

[ethicaldesign]

Thanks for the in depth response Paul. Sorry I haven't had a chance to respond yet (still haven't got time to give it my full attention at the moment as things are quite hectic with work at the moment). I'll try to get a response written as soon as I can