Musing on the Blogosphere and the Nature of News
Where does news come from? Before the blogosphere, you had two general kinds of news - word of mouth and subsidized news. Neither was (or is) particularly reliable. Word of mouth is unpredictably flawed. Though we'd like to believe that we can count on our ability to know when the news is coming from a good source, the skill is not 100%, not even close. We all get surprised more than we'd like, some more than others. More than anything, word of mouth isn't particularly useful when it comes to a broad understanding of the world, unless you happen to be one degree of separation away from the happenings of the day. So we count on subsidized news, and this is necessarily unreliable.
It costs money to put together a decent news program. You need equipment, you need people, and you need facilities. The money comes either from the donations of benevolent benefactors or from a profitable (or debt-ridden) business. PBS is an example of the former, and, to my knowledge, their news programs are not, uh, what's the word...existent. So, the only way news programming has heretofore made it to our doorsteps has been via the subsidized sale of advertising. And advertising costs the most (and generates the most revenue) where? Where the people are, and let's face it, while everybody likes to watch a good car accident, you can't actually show the bodies for too long, or you'll lose your audience.
What I'm saying is that there must be some point on the curve where it no longer pays to show "real" news. You know, stuff like how some warlord is massacaring kids in Africa. Viewers will turn it off. They'll pick something else. Therefore, it would seem that anyone who places heavy expectations on better judgement as to what is deemed newsworthy, and better, more objective, reporting of that which is deemed newsworthy is misguided. The fact is that news organizations are, as Bernard Goldberg points out at length in his books, Bias and Arrogance, bubble organizations with very little heterogeneity of opinion in them. They are profit-oriented, and inherently biased. Thankfully, we now have the blogosphere.
Blogs have effectively taken the word of mouth news method and bolstered its usefulness through the swarm effect (see Hugh Hewitt's new book, Blog). If a story is true, and it can be verified by countless independent sources, a swarm can ensue, which elevates the news to mainstream consciousness. This doesn't necessarily mean that blog news is inherently objective, it just means it's better than the rumor mill and a heck of a lot better than news that is beholden to entertaining the masses.
So there you have it. The blogoshere is a better place to get your news...in theory. The catch is that you have to figure out where in the freaking cyberworld to go. We can't all rely upon Glenn Reynolds, can we? He's actually so connected that I'm overwhelmed. So maybe the subsidized (and spoonfed and biased) news is better after all.
posted by Chris Wilson at 3/18/2005 05:16:00 PM
2 Comments:
I'm as guilty as anyone, I guess. I haven't been able to muster the patience for C-Span. It just seems like it'll take forever to get anything out of it.
Someone once said that to inform, you must entertain. No doubt, this is a commentary on what captures the attention of humans, but it makes a good point. The ideal source of news, to me, would be an unbiased but entertaining one. The BBC, while entertaining (who doesn't love the British accent?), is hardly unbiased. I place them on par with the LA Times in terms of their level of bias.
I'd say talk radio accounts for the lion's share of my news. As I travel a lot, I get the chance to listen to lots of different hosts. Neil Boortz is hands-down my favorite, but Michael Medved comes in second. I like Rush, but often take him with a grain of salt. The guy that irritates me to no end is Hannity. He never lasts more than 10 minutes.
If there's something I want to know in my own life (say at work), I solicit input from as many sources as I can. I weigh the credibility of the sources, based upon past performance as such, and draw my conclusions. With news, it works pretty much the same way. Usually, I get to feeling comfortable with a conclusion by listening to the radio and watching TV. In some cases, however, I have to dig deeper. That's when the blogosphere comes into play. What I wonder is if, as the blogosphere and wireless devices mature, blogs won't play a larger and larger role in the future.
What happens when more information is pushed than pulled? I think we're going to find out within 10 years.
3/20/2005 11:35:00 PM
"Welcome to the forum, Mal. It sounds like you are British, so it will be great to get perspective from another country. We Americans tend to believe we are the only ones on earth."
It's not that we believe we're the *only* ones on Earth, just the only ones that matter:-) I, however, am more than willing to extend the countries that matter category to include England. You can thank Winston Churchill for that.
So welcome, Mal. Along with our friend, Bill Sticker, of Walking The Streets (see blogroll) fame, I think that brings the count to two. We're getting more international every day. Times is good.
3/23/2005 01:27:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home