Conclusions

This semester has provided in-depth insight into the world of the blogosphere and its tremendous impact upon politics, society, and the ways in which we, as a civilization, absorb information.  Everything has become faster, and if you think about it, this makes perfect sense.  Humans (particularly Americans) are becoming obsessed with speed.  We want the fastest cars, the fastest internet, we want to be able to cook our dinners in the least amount of time possible.  Why shouldn't we want the fastest information?  And, to a degree, blogs have done an admirable job in reporting the news in a manner that allows everyone to be connected to world and political events in real time (or very close to it).  I would argue that, thanks to blogs, people are far better informed than they were before blogs existed.  Nevertheless, there are (to me) inherent problems with the blogging system, and in the following post I'd like to examine the benefits and drawbacks of that system, first through the lens of the 2008 election, and then through a more general analysis of blogs and media.  Hopefully, this will help to at least begin to answer the question as to whether or not blogs are beneficial or detrimental to the news, media, and to human society as a whole.

The Election

First and foremost, let's look back on the 2008 election process.  I think that, overall, this may have been the most effective demonstration of how blogs can be both productive as well as destructive.  On the one hand, blogs gave millions of Americans access to information that would otherwise be difficult to find.  Polling trends, candidate's positions on issues, and up-to-the minute updates on what those candidates were doing all provided blog readers with knowledge that probably helped them to cast their vote.  Sure, they probably could have found the same information in the newspaper or on television, but it likely would have taken a lot more effort, something which people are often not willing to expend in this day and age.  Blogs were crucial in making voters aware of political issues and also making them passionate about defending (or attacking) those issues.  Never has a public been so mobilized as in the '08 election, and a great deal of that is thanks to blogs and to the internet in general.  It brought people together during a time when so many are often divided.  Sites like Daily Kos, Matthew Yglesias and The American Prospect were particularly impressive in their attempts to be as up-to-date (and generally as accurate) as possible.  Even if they presented an inherent bias, they were impressive in their attention to detail and were generally insightful in their commentary. 

However, I'd be remiss if I didn't voice my misgivings about the blogosphere during the electoral process.  Its habit of making smaller stories into enormous ones often became irritating.  Probably the best example of this (in my view) was the infamous "lipstick on a pig" quote from Obama.  One minute, he was making a speech that would have been heard by a relatively small crowd and likely passed over by the media at large, and the next minute his (fairly harmless) quote was all over the internet, including virtually every political blog on the planet.  This led to the story's being picked up by every major television network and newspaper.  It was an explosion of comical proportions, and it gave one phrase the potential to ruin Obama's campaign a la Howard Dean's screaming incident.  Obviously, this might be a bit dramatic, but nevertheless it's a good example of the over-analysis/overexposure which is so common in the blogging world, and also a perfect example of how blogs influence the rest of the media.  As we said so often in class, it's remarkable how an internet post by one guy can so quickly make its way to the headlines of CNN.  That's the influence of blogs in a nutshell, and it's pretty impressive, if not slightly disconcerting.

On the flip-side, I sometimes became incredibly frustrated when blogs moved so fast that they often overlooked some of the more interesting and essential stories.  For instance, when the economy was first going down the tubes, it was rarely mentioned on the blogs I was reading.  Sure, there might be a story about AIG's problems in the morning, but by the afternoon it was back to discussing Sarah Palin's wardrobe.  It wasn't until it became apparent that our finances were about to disappear completely that the blogs finally realized that the economy was the story they (and the political campaigns) needed to be paying attention to.  It showed how bloggers' short attention spans often results in their losing the big picture, leading their blogs to become destructive rather than instructive by depriving their readers of essential information.

Overall, though, I'd have to say that in spite of all their often extreme biases and almost obnoxiously torrid news cycle (which doesn't even allow readers to absorb one story before moving on to the next), the blogs did an admirable job of covering the campaign, and were usually able to draw attention to the right issues.  As I said, they helped to mobilize a population that had not been so motivated in years (at least on the left-wing), and allowed Obama and his team to harness an energy that essentially propelled them to their historic victory.  It's a perfect display of what Shirky talks about in his book: "the power of organizing without organizations".  I think it's a tremendous innovation that people and their ideas can come together so easily to promote a cause.  No paperwork has to be filled out, no hoops to be jumped through.  You just do it, and that's truly liberating.  So well done, blogs.  Well done, indeed.

Blogs and the World of Media

Now I want to move to the bigger picture:  how are blogs affecting the modern media, and what does that mean for the future of our communications industry?  To address the former portion of that question, I think it's pretty safe to say that blogs are at the forefront of the newspaper genocide (thanks to Molly for the link!) that's currently taking place.  In all seriousness, newspapers as we know them may be completely extinct within the next couple of years.  Websites like blogs have made things so instantaneous and so convenient, that taking the time to read a paper probably seems absurd to most people, not to mention expensive.  This has resulted in a titanic drop in paper sales, so much so that even the giant known as The New York Times is having to severely rethink its marketing strategy, turning more to the internet and less to home delivery.  Indeed, that's what we're seeing from all of the major papers.  They seem to be realizing that the internet is the way of the future (indeed, the way of the present) and if they're going to survive, they're going to have to make some serious adjustments.  Those that can't keep up will almost certainly be left to rot.  Or at least go bankrupt.  To me, this is disappointing.  Of course I appreciate the effort to make news more accessible, but there will always be a part of me that enjoys sitting down and reading a physical newspaper.  It's just a tradition, and I'll be very sorry to see it go.  The same goes for TV news.  Local stations in particular are going down the toilet, firing top executives and talent in favor of young, cheap labor, and even that isn't helping.  Pretty soon, we may be facing a television news world comprised solely of CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, all of which have extensive internet content that often goes more in depth than their on-air coverage.  Unnerving stuff, but it seems that's where we're headed, and we've got to adapt along with it.

Who's Accountable?

One final issue that I think requires our attention is one that was brought up in one of our final classes: who is held accountable for their words?  As we said, in the "olden days", there was a very clear set of rules laid out for journalists and authors in terms what should and shouldn't be written (i.e. on the record and off the record), and if someone wrote something controversial, they'd have to answer their critics.  Now, as Matt pointed out in his post, in the age of the blog everyone is an author, so who's subject to the restrictions formerly reserved only for professionals?  Everyone or no one?  This is a problem for me in that any bozo can start a blog and write anything he wants while not having to worry about taking responsibility for his words.  He can write things that aren't true and claim them to be fact without having to be concerned about official reprimand.  That doesn't seem right to me.  And don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to rant against freedom of speech here.  I think it's excellent that people have this new forum in which to express their opinions.  I'm just saying that the blogosphere makes the line between professional author and ordinary civilian, extremely blurry, and I'll be very interested to see how it resolves itself.  Will bloggers be given the journalistic protection Matt writes about, or will an entirely new branch of journalism emerge where new rules are created?  Should be an interesting ride.

Into the Great Unknown

So where are these blogs going to end up?  Hard to say.  Alex think that now that the election's over, they'll retreat back into specialized areas (i.e. health care, the economy, foreign affairs, etc.) and not reunite until the next election.  I think that's definitely possible, and might actually be beneficial to the media as a whole, for if the blogs aren't all spurring each other on with competing information, there's a chance that the news cycle might return to at least a semi-normalized and digestible pace.  But my real question is whether or not the big corporations who have for so long controlled the media will find a way to contain the blogosphere.  How will they adapt to this new world?  Will blogs elude their power and remain unrestrained and uncontrollable, or will they fall under the same monopolies that control our major newspapers and tv networks?  Personally, I think someone will probably find a way to harness the power of blogs and make them into a more finite, more profitable entity.  But that's just my cynical perspective, and for the sake of free information, I hope I'm proved wrong.  Regardless, I think our society is moving towards a blog-dependent era, and I don't see that changing any time soon.  People want their news, they want it fast, and they want it to be constantly changing.  That's what blogs do, and for better or worse, they are the foreseeable future of this country and this world's media.  

Thanks to Alex and the class for a great semester.  Happy holidays!