 |
HELLO…Hello…hello……… |
 |
The Internet is changing the way people find and digest the news. Traditional newspaper readership is down (to under 50% from over 80% in the 1960’s according to the Newspaper Association of America) and more people are getting their news and commentary from a variety of sources (newspaper websites, television, and blogs to name a few). Because people are using more sources to get their information, and many of these sources are non-professional (Wikipedia, most blogs, etc…), a media echo chamber has been created. And it works like this:
- Some news outlet makes an allegation. This can be factual, based in fact, or wholly unfounded.
- Other news outlets pick up, parrot, or otherwise comment on this allegation, thereby corroborating the story and lending it an air of real credibility. These echoing organizations can be unconnected or highly organized.
- As the allegation is repeated, taken out of context, and stretched out of proportion bigger media outlets pick up on the “news item.” The credibility grows and grows until people believe this allegation to be fact if only because they have heard it repeated so much.
And thus, allegation becomes fact through the machinations of buzz. Stephen Colbert may have said it best, or at least funniest:
[youtube vC6Vp1Tta-k Stephen Colbert on the Echo Chamber]
That’s right. You don’t need to be right anymore in today’s brave new world. You just need to be LOUD!
It happens all the time. John Kerry was attacked by the misinformed Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. Just last week, presidential hopeful Barack Obama was alleged to have attended a madrassa (a type of muslim school that has at times been a breeding ground for terrorists) as a boy. While CNN quickly disproved this claim, there are still hundreds of right wing blogs corroborating this “fact”. From original report to national news, to complete debunking: 1 week. (Not that the right wing necessarily started this allegation…the New York Times claims Hillary Clinton is behind it.)
Now the real question. Is this necessarily a bad thing?
I’m not saying that blatantly false stories appearing on nation news programs is good for the nation, but I’m wondering if this glut of media outlets (both professionally fact checked or otherwise) and the ease by which the media as a whole can be manipulated is necessarily a problem. In my mind, we’re just dealing with people talking to other people. Even traditional news outlets are not raining down the truth upon us from on high; they are staffed by people (possibly better trained) just like any other newspaper, blog or PR team. Just people with a voice and an opinion.
We, the media consumers, should make their decisions about fact and fiction for ourselves. We need to master the crucial skill of sifting through multiple conflicting reports and gleaning what truth we can. The Internet has created a wonderful and dangerous world full of “information.” Instead of taking anything at face value, even reports from the most trusted of news organizations, we need to take everything with a grain of salt. Not only will this approach help minimize the damage of completely false “news” but this will also get America and the world actually thinking about the day’s events instead of blindly opening up and swallowing what the news outlets of the world deem pure and worthy of our consumption. They should teach this kind of thing in schools!
To think about it another way, The Washington Post may in fact be right, or the guy with a computer and an Internet connection may just turn out to have a nugget of truth no other outlet else can touch. This is both the strength and the weakness of the Internet-enabled media. If anyone can be right and anyone can be wrong, suddenly thought, analysis, and decision are required. And I for one support a media world that makes me think.
