The digital revolution, with its increased connectivity and decentralization of information access, has changed the face of journalism. What was once the realm of Cronkites or Thompsons now belongs to bloggers. But who are these bloggers? They are anyone with a computer and the desire to blog. This shift from traditional journalism to citizen journalism is not without merit, but it also does not come without its problems. For instance, I am blogging right now. There are no editors or fact checkers to keep me from inaccuracy or bias. I could write anything I wanted, such as "Obama is black-Hitler" and if I was convincing or my readers were gullible, they would believe it. Therein lies the main problem with citizen journalism.
But, as I said, it is not without merit. The decentralized aspect can be very effective in an oppressive regime. In a situation in which regular reporters would not be allowed to report, the citizen journalist can anonymously tell the story on the internet. Such a thing happened in Iran last year, when Twitter helped the Iranian protesters organize and tell their story. Problems in objectivity can supposedly be solved by such sites as Digg, in which users vote up or vote down other people's posts, effectively relying on the wisdom of the crowd.
But the crowd is not so wise. Hitler was elected by a majority, after all, and most Americans voted George Bush in. Twice. It's part of a trend that espouses democratic principles in all things, given democracy's success in the 19th and 20th centuries. As Churchill said, however, “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried”. It assumes that because a majority of people believe something, it must be right. The will of the majority often has no grounding in truth or right. Democracy is indeed the best, or rather least bad system of government, but it has no place in journalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment