“The broadcast and digital media has become
the most important source of educating the public as to the issues of our time.
I say educating specifically because as I see it the purpose of including the
press in the First Amendment was the understanding of our founding Fathers that
in order to maintain this new type of government they had invented, there was
an overarching need for an informed public.” – Mike Spindell
George Orwell once said "In a time of universal
deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." But what happens when there aren’t enough
truth-tellers? The rise of Web 2.0 technologies
has resulted in momentous reductions in news staff around the world. How does has this affected the public
at-large?
Freedom of the press was considered so essential to an
informed electorate capable of responsible governance that our founding fathers
expressly mentioned in the First Amendment.
A blog
post from Mike Spindell in October 2013 builds on that protection by
stating “many have declared it essential as a bulwark against tyranny.” So what then happens when the free press is
solely dependent upon advertisers or government support?
As Web 2.0 technologies have blossomed, trained
journalists at traditional news outlets have been nearly continuously culled. And readers have become accustomed to
receiving news for free. The membership
of Investigative Reporters and Editors fell more than 30 percent just from
2003-2009. American Journalism Review reported
in a piece from September
2010 that as of September 2010, applications for Pulitzers were down more
than 40 percent in some investigative categories, this drop was reflected
across journalistic competitions. The result
is fledgling, underpaid journalists without time to fact check or chase down
independent leads.
So, can blogs fill the gap? Jessica Palmer digs into this question in a piece
from 2009. Palmer laments that
though there are many good science blogs, we (science bloggers) don’t have access
to skilled staff or fact-checkers and that the problems of inaccuracies,
over-generalizations and misrepresentations are prevalent in popular science
journalism everywhere now as generalist writers have to cover the sports beat,
the crime beat, the science beat, the government beat etc.
A Washington Post article from Jeff Bezos shoes a
Newspaper Association of America graph
demonstrating the slide of print revenues from 2003 to 2012.
An article from The Atlantic’s Alexis C. Madrigal, shows
in graph form the decline in writing on Wall Street from 2002 – 2011. Though the rise of internet reporting and
cuts in staff cannot be entirely responsible, I would argue that the decline in
staff and average attention spans play a significant role.
Graph from The
Remarkable Decline in the Wall Street Journal’s Long-Form Journalism, The
Atlantic, April 17,2013
Today’s blogs aren’t a replacement for
traditional journalism; they’re a complement to it. And while science blogs (or
Twitter, or wikis, or any of a number of other interactive media) may
eventually “fill the void” left by the regrettable decline of traditional science
journalism, to do so credibly, they’re going to have to evolve into something
better adapted to the task. –Jessica Palmer
What do you think? Is there a path forward for truthful,
investigative reporting? Has the dearth of journalists harmed our
government? Our ability to interpret
complex scientific data? Other results?
Brilliant post Erin, with a terribly important question asking if the current state of journalism causes our government (I would say republic) to be less healthy?
ReplyDeleteI would suggest this problem is a subset of the larger problem, the corporatizing of America. Little by little, piece by piece we have allowed corporations rights and privileges which should be granted only to individuals. Their power unchecked, they have come to dominate our political machine, through undue influence on politicians, and our culture, through the control of all streams of media.
And journalism is one of those streams. Journalists must be the conscience of a society, asking the tough questions of us, challenging our choices. To do this effectively journalists must be free to express their opinion, unfettered by the muzzle of money's influence.
Blogs are important, as they offer everyone the opportunity to express themselves. But as you stated, without research, without training, without the time and ability to look deeply into issues, then bloggers are just people on soapboxes spouting off about whatever they choose.
We need a healthy, robust, disinterested system of journalism to be the watchdog over governments and corporations. Without them, we sink into corruption and loss of a responsive government. -Jim
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Jim,
DeleteThank you for the thoughtful reply! I agree that a powerful, independent news media is a critical cornerstone of a truly healthy democracy. Also intrigued by your thoughts on corporatizing and feel we could have a whole new blog post dedicated to delving into this idea. The 2010 Supreme Court's ruling (reaffirmed in 2012 http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/07/the-supreme-court-still-thinks-corporations-are-people/259995/) that corporations are people has been hotly contested. I recently read an article that had an interesting take on the case: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/03/25/a-liberal-case-for-why-corporations-are-people-too/.
To say that Web 2.0 has resulted in a less educated public is wrong. I understand that the Web has the ability to misinform the public,but as adults, we should be able to determine inaccuracy. The idea of having the most up to date media available can be extremely beneficial. Blogs, social networking sites, Skype, wikis and so on allow users to learn what's happening when it's happening. Does it really matter that the information isn't being printed? Hopefully with the ever-evolving Internet, society will have the opportunity of receiving the latest news. I was aware that the amount of printed material was dropping, but was surprised by how significant it had changed over such little time. Our biggest worry with moving from print to web is the validity.
ReplyDeleteVery much agree that there is more impetus on the individual to discern fact from fiction. Perhaps an alternative title could have been focused on misinformed rather than education.
Deletehttp://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/03/18/facebook_and_misinformation_study_explains_why_your_stupid_facebook_friends.html
http://www.alternet.org/media/conspiracy-theories-running-rampant-how-misinformation-spreads-facebook
It's a whole wide world out there - more information than we know what to do with and I agree with concern over validity. Twitter in particular is a great way to get the most up to date "news" on what is happening. The lack of fact-checking also presents problems: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/farida-vis/the-rapid-spread-of-misinformation-online_b_4665678.html. Maybe it's a bit like losing an arm, but winning the lottery?
ReplyDeleteErin,
ReplyDeleteYou raise important questions in this post. I don't think our society is less educated because I see people reading the news via Twitter or blogs who never would have read the news from a newspaper or magazine. In that respect, the public is more educated as they have access to news at almost the moment it happens. What has changed, though, are the skills required of the readers. We can no longer trust that everything "published" is credible. Our change in society puts readers in a position to discern what is credible from what isn't, and teaching needs to help students develop these skills young. I don't think we're a less-educated society, but we just may not be equipped with all the right tools to interpret and analyze what we're reading. But that is a dangerous situation -- not being able to discern good information from bad. And maybe that missing skill is what makes society seem less educated?
Thanks for your thoughts!
-Beth
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI would have to agree with Beth. The public is more informed in the digital and they (the public) need enhanced skills to detect fact from not so factual.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the decrease in investigative reporters is more about people being able to publish freely via blogs and websites and less about an actual decrease in the actual numbers (just a theory). And perhaps the decrease in science journalism is a reflection of this trend as well.
Blogs should never replace traditional journalism, but I think we'll see less traditional journalism because of the relative ease of publishing with Web 2.0 tools.
Jim brings up an interesting point in the corporatization of America and its influence on writing and research. I think what this means is that we must become our own watchdogs which brings me back tot he point that today's readers must learn and develop those ever so important critical thinking skills.
Honestly, the thought has never crossed my mind. After reviewing your blogging and included graphs, I am seriously considering the idea. Ethical behavior and public openness on the topic are both necessary. Government and data interpretation are not negatively affected in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteIt is quite interesting how things have changed... I mean really, I get most of my news from the Lebanon Daily News Facebook Page as I scroll through my newsfeed. Their reporters/journalists post from out in the community instantly! They post a picture and caption it to keep us updated on traffic, robberies, missing people, etc. This type of information, I rely on and trust. But really, this is causing a problem down the line. I am not purchasing the paper, or paying the website subscription, which doesn't help pay salaries to get these reporters to do more digging into bigger and still important stories. I never really thought about all of this before.
ReplyDeleteWhile I see it as a problem, I don't see it getting back to the way it was. I believe there should be a requirement to a level of fact checking to take place. But overall, technology is only advancing. We can't go back in time, but can only find a economical way to fix the problem.
Completely agree, we can't go back., so I wonder how we can effectively shape the future to ensure the fourth estate is a powerful force in society to serve as a check for transparency when examining government, finance and business sector actions.
DeleteI personally feel that there are more opportunities to be educated through Twitter, blogs, the web, etc. Through RSS feeds, people can quickly check the daily news and what's going on in the world. I do think that it's important that we check our sources for validity.
ReplyDeleteAgree - I love that the news is at my finger tips in many forms. However, I wonder about the quality of news available (far less investigative journalism) as well as my own dwindling attention span. For instance I can learn that three were killed in Ukraine today from a quick tweet, but context is missing unless I then take time to read the full story (which admittedly I frequently do not do).
DeleteI disagree that Web 2.0 has led to people being less educated. People are continually seeking information on the web to help themselves acquire knowledge. I know that there a lots of games on the Internet and children can overdue them, however there is also so many education games that students have access to help instill learning.
ReplyDeleteI do not feel that the pubic is less educated from the use of Web 2.0 tools. I do believe that the technology has pushed journalism to run with their information and not take the time to possibly check what is fact and what isn't. I myself daily read the online version of the local newspaper without purchasing it. There is much to be learned from the internet if one chooses to use it as a learning tool.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that people have more opportunities nowadays to learn and educate themselves. The problem becomes many students simply aren't ambitious enough to search for information that interests them. It is important that we as educators show students how to effectively locate relevant content on the web. I do agree with many of the other also that with how quickly information is published now, it is even more crucial to cross reference material to check for validity.
ReplyDeleteA lot of it seems to go back to that intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation. Do the students have a desire to be correct? Is there an intrinsic motivation for them to want to be lifetime learners. Maybe there are fewer and fewer as technology advances. Or, maybe with the advancement of technology we are seeing more and more students interested in learning the latest and greatest--trying to stay ahead of the curve.
ReplyDelete