I had a friend of mine ask me what I thought about newspapers and their increasing irrelevance in today's world. Given that I spent the better part of a decade writing reviews, articles and op-ed pieces for websites, you would think I'm all hardcore about the power of the web and it's clear challenge to the dominance of traditional journalistic media.
So that I don't come across as a hypocrite, yes indeed the fact that a moderately well informed geek like myself could make discretionary income writing for websites is a phenomena that I could have never indulged in within traditional media. I'm not a trained journalist. Like most traditional disciplines there are barriers to entry, and most of these barriers make some level of sense.
I for instance don't get invited to give lectures on quantum physics. I am after all not a physicist. If I were to be invited to a lecture on subatomic physics and I disagreed with a physicist about the nature of quantum indeterminacy because it is just a weird thing to contemplate, I would hope to be laughed off the stage. So there are domains where facts matter and expertise does count, as well they should.
One thing I learned in the competitive environment of tech journalism is that you had better do your research and get your facts straight. If not people will pour out of the woodwork to call you out on your mistakes or misinterpretations. Naturally some people will pour out of the woodwork just to be trolls, because the internet makes this as easy as having an informed opinion. Like many disciplines then, one can "become" a journalist by trying to be one.
The web does serve to make information more immediate, and this beyond all else is what is and will lead to the demise of traditional media outlets. We are however at a transitional stage where I feel harm is being done to journalism itself. Being able to choose when and where you get your information is a powerful and profound ability we all now have the ability to leverage at our whim. What many of us are not trained for or conversant with however, is the need to be skeptical and critical.
Anyone with $5 can put up a websites, and with effort you can leverage this easily into a place where hundreds of thousands (or more) of people will come to read what you write about. I know this is possible, as I've done this myself on several occasions. However I wrote in a very competitive sphere of interest. Not only was I competing with rival websites for views, I was competing with my readers for their opinions.
In this sense the web has turned us all into "journalists", and engaged us all in the process of being involved in a larger conversation. This is a good thing. Just keep in mind that not all the web's domains of interest fall into these patterns. Many sites attract a following because they take a stand on a given issue, and this stand appeals to like minded individuals. This can also be a good thing, but in this "drum beat" genre of website there is less inclination for participants to examine you critically.
One always should guard against buying into propositions solely because they make you feel good about yourself or what you believe. Penn Jillette said it best when he said "if feeling good and wasting your time is a goal, then maybe heroin is for you."
Before we dismantle our "trusted institutions" utterly (and some of these trusted institutions have become pretty rotten, but that's another topic for another time), let us simply realize that as we all become "citizen journalists" the responsibility to think critically and skeptically for ourselves has increased drastically. It is way not the other way around.
No comments:
Post a Comment