New Media, New Politics?

The Evolution of The Media

My experience with the blogosphere; reading blogs, writing blogs, and even acknowledging their existence, was almost embarrassing prior to taking this class. I was a firm believer in the traditional printed newspaper and only really turned to the internet when I needed immediate information that I didn't have at hand at the time. Although I was somewhat familiar with the key elite media sites, my views of other more partisan blogs was dismissive and vague, and I believed that they contained nothing significant or even truthful that I couldn't find in my beloved mainstream outlets. 

Imagine my dismay, and almost shame, when I quickly discovered one of the main themes of our class this semester was that pretty much every news break, every scandal to hit the elite media stemmed from the blogosphere. Whilst several people noted that the whole 'lipstick on a pig' fiasco was the best example of a blog story breaking into the mainstream, my personal favorite was the infamous 'that one' quote from McCain during the second presidential debate. This idea was also, as many people before me have mentioned, a central hypothesis of the Shirky book Here Comes Everybody that we read this semester, which dedicates whole chapters to the theories that 'everyone is a media outlet',stating that journalism was no longer by any means exclusive to traditional journalists; and how group action can, in today's information revolution, call the elite media's attention to one person's story simply by the means of networking. Again, as others have already discussed, throughout class this semester we have learnt that this latest revolution is just one of many that have shaken up the way the media presents itself to the public and how this in turn affects the way politics are conducted. Whether it was the development in the postal service which allowed for the travelling of information faster than ever before, or the advent of television which further speeded up the news cycle and brought about drastic ways to the way politics were conducted and presented to the public, communication and information sharing methods are constantly evolving.

The one thing that is different about this revolution is that as the internet age dawns, we are also witnessing the spectacular crumbling of the 'old' media system as we know it, as newspaper circulation numbers continue to plummet and with some of the biggest names scrambling around to try and prevent further losses. Although everyone saw it coming, as Rob quoted from the Shirky blog, the elite media has been bafflingly slow in accepting what is now very quickly becoming a reality and making moves to save their businesses. If its one thing everyone could take from the results of this past election, it is that if you move with the times and adapt accordingly, you can be a success. Step forward please, soon-to-be President Obama. He and his aides ran a historic campaign, not just because of who he is and how far he has come, but in terms of their embracement of this new form of media and information spreading, Team Obama went all out. No rock was left unturned, no type of communication was left unused, from emailing lists to Youtube to t-shirts, Obama and his messages of change were everywhere, and the public couldn't get enough of him. Then, on the other end of the scale, there were those who stubbornly marched on, clinging to old ideas and refusing to acknowledge the changes going on around them, and these people end up going down along side the 'old' media. Although McCain tirelessly built his campaign around his rebellious senatorial reputation, going so far as to recruit Palin as his very own mini-me maverick (who now, quite painfully so, has been pointed to as the kiss of death for the Republican party), his unwillingness to be a part of the information revolution, even going so far as to admit he didn't know how to use a computer, proved to be one of his downfalls. As Molly put it, the McCain campaign simply didn't "get" new journalism the way Obama's did.

Another topic that has been central to both our class and the election which again although I was acutely aware of, I never really gave a lot of thought to, is bias in the media. Although it is universally accepted that blogs are biased, and often proudly so, the neutrality of the elite media was called into question several times as the race drew closer to Election Day. Both parties were involved in the accusations, with the McCain campaign claiming that the New York Times was 'in the tank' for Obama, whilst Obama's team went head to head with Fox News over the coverage of their candidate. There are many different forms of bias that can occur in the media, and one that we learnt about in class that seemed more relevant in the election than the type that the two campaigns got so worked up about was the issue of fairness. Having followed the elite media websites for over two months, a pattern that I noticed when reading many of the articles was that journalists were falling over themselves to always present both sides of every story they reported on, even when the truth was blindingly obvious. Although it could be argued that this is how journalism should be, and that it should be up to the reader to form their own opinion after they are presented with all of the information, isn't it also a journalist's responsibility to write about facts only? Both camps, McCain's in particular, got pretty ugly with the accusations made against the other, so as Rob asked, was it right for the media to cover it all as true, even though many of the claims have proven to be either false or have since disappeared from mainstream media coverage entirely. That is one issue that has been left somewhat unresolved, and it remains to be seen if and how journalistic styles will change as part of the evolution of the media.

Looking forward to the new year and of course to the beginning of Obama's time in office, I think that it is clear that the answer to the question in the title of our course 'New Media, New Politics?' is absolutely yes, and looking back on his campaign, it also seems that there couldn't be someone better for the job of leading the country through this revolution than one who has navigated himself so efficiently and successfully through it thus far, and one who's motto is change. As for the blogosphere, it seems that its time has finally come to step into the forefront of the media world. 

The Bl-ews, Part II

In my last post, I question how the elite media were unable to "see" the rise of blogs. Per Professor Whalen's suggestion, I looked at Shirky's description of ancient scribes (pp. 66-70) to find a historical parallel... or parallels!

Shirky writes that in the past, a scribe's "function was indispensable, and his skills were irreplaceable" until the printing press provided a "sudden and massive reduction in the difficulty of reproducing a written work." He later compares this to the "indispensable" function of publishing... at least until the development of the blog, which now allows "anyone in the developed world" to publish "anything, anytime, and the instant it's published, it is globally available and readily findable."

Similarly, scribes and journalists/publishers have both exhibited how "professional self-conception and self-defense, so valuable in ordinary times, become a disadvantage in revolutionary ones, because professionals are always concerned with threats to the profession... but in some cases the change that threatens the profession benefits society."

As one HuffPo blogger Jillian York puts it: "Instead of being a newfangled alternative to the news, blogs have become the news."

both

OK. So, as we've discussed, blogs make journalism "easy" for the masses just as the printing press made writing "easy" for the scribes, but both groups were not ready to accept these new anxiety-provoking changes, a reaction that is not so unlikely. When faced with the decision to attack or merge (and potentially lose power), it might be easier to attack. 

On this note... the most hilarious similarity between these groups? Using the new technology to defend old technology! Just as scribes used the printing press to create a wide-spread document in support of their work, journalists are increasingly turning to blogs despite a somewhat unceasing "snarky" attitude towards them.

Jillian York continues to explain how while the MSM is grudgingly accepting this medium, as "global publications are looking toward foreign journalists to provide perspective... by blogging," the attitude isn't completely inclusionary. This is evidenced by a post from Jay Rosen, another HuffPost blogger who reports how Ben Smith of the Politico (gleefully/) described how bloggers painfully crave acceptance from the mainstream media. The seeming struggle between the incorporation of this platform and attacking the platform (through the platform, nonetheless) seems endless. Finally, the MSM has yet to address the major question of citations of blogs. 

On a different technology-note, what will be incredibly interesting in the coming years is the advancement of technology under President Obama. One Huffington Post blogger, Peter M. Shane, writes an interesting response to Obama's vision. He says,

The Obama platform is something of a "Top Ten" list when it comes to proposals for federal leadership in revitalizing democracy through technology. He would "make government data available online in univerally accessible formats to allow citizens to make use of that data... He would establish pilot programs to open up government decision making to meaningful public input. He would require heads executive departments and agencies to conduct significant public business in public and in venues that can be watched online.

Obama promises to employ current information technology to permit citizens to participate in public meetings from a distance. He promises "a web site, a search engine, and other web tools that enable citizens easily to track online federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and lobbyist contacts with government officials."  He would solicit public comment on the final drafts of all non-emergency legislation before he signs it into law.

The kicker?

He would improve government decision-making through Web 2.0 tools, such as blogs and wikis.

Sounds good to me (especially after feeling like there were a lot of unanswered questions in the Bush years)! Wonder if this will actually happen... especially in light of Obama's much publicized Blackberry surrender.

In summary: we've really discussed a wide range of topics this semester, and the biggest questions I have are those regarding the future of interactive media. My current predictions include:

1. a couple more years of uncomfortable shifting by the MSM (notably the newspapers) before journalists, bloggers, and citizens come to an equilibrium.

2. the rise of right-of-center bloggers looking to critique Obama

3. a potential race for technology by Republicans (this just as easily could not happen)

4. wondering about the "new forms" of blogging (and the new challenges to elite media) - podcasts on television?? 

4. a society in which US citizens have more information about government than ever before.

It will be very interesting to see what the future holds, but I am happy to have had a good foundation of the past from this class. It was great sharing it with all of you.

Last Post Addendum: Demise of the Newspapers

Clay Shirky, on the demise of newspapers in a blog post entitled "The Newspaper Industry and the Arrival of the Glaciers":

"So I'm calling bullshit on the Rosenbaum thesis, because no one has been "caught up in this great upheaval." Caught up? That makes it sound like a tornado. This change has been more like seeing oncoming glaciers ten miles off, and then deciding not to move."

A few days ago Alex suggesting that I add a bit regarding the latest round of newspaper collapses to my final post.  He also pointed me towards the above -linked blog post by Clay Shirky.  Since then I have been compiling my thoughts on the topic and trying to formulate my own conclusion.  Well, here is my profound insight: I agree with Clay.

Seriously though, the very first thing that comes to mind when I see every seemingly shocked newspaper executive blaming their apparently sudden downfall on a million different reasons is how absurdly incompetent they must be to have assumed that the dynamic of their problem would just suddenly vanish when it is caused by such a fundamental change and has been so long coming.  

The parallels of this collapse to that of the music industry - an area that I have studied closely as a music producer, audio engineer, and intern at a music-law firm - are numerous, and the lack of corporate response equally ludicrous.  The internet changed everything in audio and newspapers.  When the first digital mediums for capturing audio were developed the industry succeeded for the most part in crippling consumer hardware to prevent end-users from making copies of digital audio tapes - which for the first time could be made without generational quality loss.  Then the internet came along.  Just like that these perfect copies could be traded over a global network without any marginal cost.  Hmmm.  What specific factors does Shirky pin the demise of the newspaper biz on? 

"It didn't take much vision to figure out that unlimited perfect copyability, with global reach and at zero marginal cost, was slowly transforming the printing press into a latter-day steam engine."

There you have it.  The music biz (at least in its traditional form) and the newspaper biz are dying the same slow and painful death of the very same symptoms. 

The future of each of these industries is also running in parallel.  People still want to listen to music and still have a need for information, they just don't have to go the the same old places to get it.  CDBaby and TuneCore are taking advantage of everything the internet has to offer and connecting bands directly with fans.  Likewise, niche blogs and news sites are emerging to give people their informational fix up to the minute - without the need to pick up any pesky paper at the newsstand.

The major-label fat cats and old-media CEOs should play a round of golf together sometime.  Their schedules will certainly be open enough in the not so distant future...

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!

The internet: an outlet for social change and opportunities?

In our last class we had an interesting discussion about the impact of the internet on people's lives. Students raised important questions regarding the topic. One question that stood out to me most was: does the internet promote an antisocial environment?  Heather referred to a lack of face to face communication that the internet promotes when arguing that indeed the internet has led to a downfall in sociality.  One can argue that by having organization/groups online it allows people to disconnect themselves from society and exist almost exclusively on the web.  The internet might have opened up doors for people who are lazy and do not want to interact face to face, but consider the doors it has opened up for all those people who want to enhance their social lives. The internet has improved communication so greatly so that meeting people and forming real relationships is not only a possibility through the internet, it is enhanced through the internet.  With that said, it is also important to recognize the potential bad that can come from the readily available information and group forming on the internet.  Should the internet be more regulated to make sure that people do not use it for spreading immoral ideas, doing bad things, and organizing a group with an immoral agenda? I will discuss online group forming/social environment, the flow of information, and the media; all of which the internet has changed. 

Online Group Forming

Clay Shirky talks a lot about how the internet allows us to form social groups effortlessly.  People have the ability to find friends around the world that have the similar interests and these relationships can translate into the real world.  The internet has given me this type of opportunity.  I recently discovered Couch Surfing.  This website is a network similar to facebook in that all the members have profile pages and other members can look at these profile pages. The difference between Facebook and Couch Surfer is that the sole purpose of Couch Surfer is to create an easy, and cheap way for people to travel. Currently I am couch surfer host and just this weekend I had my first guest stay with me.  My guest was a 19 year old musician from Berlin, Germany.  She saw that I too was a musician and was in town for a few days for a music seminar. She contacted me through couch surfer to crash on my couch.  After using some judgment about her Couch Surfer profile/pictures/myspace page, I decided she looked pretty normal and harmless so I let her stay at my place.  This network (couchsufer.com) made it so easy for me to meet someone that I would have never met otherwise. I love meeting new random people and helping them travel/traveling cheaply myself so this network is perfect for me. It may have started with me meeting people online but the outcome was me being able to meet people in real life. For me the internet has allowed me to branch out and form real face to face relationships that I would have never been able to make before the internet. 

The readily available forming of social groups can also be used for positive social change. The internet allows people to get involved in making social change much more easily than pre internet American society did.  Take the Obama campaign as an example. They used the internet as an outlet for people to involved with My Barack Obama. Simply by giving people opportunities to get involved from the comfort of their own living room or bedroom they managed to raise half a billion dollars. This shows that not only do people want to get involved in making change they will if given the chance. It is also important to note that all of this involvement was in the framework of our existing political system.  There was  When groups like this can be formed on the internet and can reach so many populations why should we change what is already working so well?

Next, I want to examine some of downsides to the social environment that the internet has created. In our final class we discussed how online games, particularly Second Life , can causes people to isolate themselves and live vicariously through their internet "second life".  Essentially this program allows people to create somewhat of an ideal life on the internet, and many people can use this as an outlet of escaping the hardships of their real lives. Also consider Chat Rooms. The whole idea behind Chat Rooms is that people can chat without having to meet up and talk face to face. This type of thing also allows for people to abandon real life relationships and stay on their computers. 

It is important to examine the potential dangers of giving everyone the ability to create social groups and find information on the internet at ease. Shirky's example of a bad group is a web page devoted to convincing its teen members to be anorexic.  Couch Surfer can also be seen as a danger.  The whole concept of strangers staying in your house could be quite off-putting for some people and many would argue that this unregulated network can cause danger in peoples lives, whether the host be an ax murderer or the guest be a violent rapist, etc. But Shirky does not spend much time talking about these types of groups and focuses on the freedom that everyone has with the internet.  This is a somewhat idealistic approach and I feel it deserves more discussion.  

So Much Information out there...

When examining the implication of having so much accessible information on the internet it is also important to look at the possible dangers.  A  recent report from Times Online says that the terrorists used Google Earth to plan the Mumbai attack. This is a clear example of the readily available information provided by the internet helping to make evil deeds possible.  There are also obviously benefits to having so much well researched information online. As a student I take advantage of this every time I write a research paper or want to find an answer to a question.  It is so easy to get answers and read peer-reviewed articles without having to go to a library.

New Media

The internet is obviously used as a tool for media.  But what are the implications of this new type of media?  Before taking this class I had not seriously followed any blogs.  The news I read online was primarily restricted to NY Times online and ESPN. Both of these news outlets were major organizations even before the birth of the internet.  What the internet has done, is taken media to a whole new level.  Thinkers are coming out to spread ideas without needing to have formal training and getting a job with some major news network.  Because bloggers come out with sometimes more radical opinions than the elite media does, some people feel threatened.  Sarah Palin told Greta Van Susteren of Fox News that these bloggers are just "kids in pajamas sitting in the basement of their parents' homes", inferring that these people are not legitimate members of the media.  Calling people out for not wearing fancy suits and makeup, not having formalized training in journalism, and not having enough money to afford their own house just exemplifies how shallow some people are.  The interesting thing about Palin is that it is arguably the blogosphere that brought her to national attention in the first place.  Without the blogosphere she probably would not have ever been noticed. 

"Brickley registered a Web site—palinforvp.blogspot.com—which began getting attention in the conservative blogosphere. In the month before Palin was picked by McCain, Brickley said, his Web site was receiving about three thousand hits a day. Support for Palin had spread from one right-of-center Internet site to the next. First, the popular conservative blogger InstaPundit mentioned Brickley’s campaign. Then a site called the American Scene said that Palin was “very appealing”; another, Stop the A.C.L.U., described her as “a great choice.” The traditional conservative media soon got in on the act:  embraced Palin, and Rush Limbaugh, the radio host, praised her as “a babe.” 

The internet has given the opportunity for so many more people to get their voices heard and defy this Palin paradigm.  There are thousands maybe even millions of bloggers who have the opportunity to spread their messages but people are able to filter out the best. The people get to determine who they want to read, they no longer have to rely on networks making that decision for them. 

Shirky is a proponent of freedom of internet groups and ideas because he believes that free speech is the driving factor. As I do believe that free speech is a very important thing, it is also extremely important to look beyond the first amendment and examine if this is the only factor when considering regulating the internet.  True, the internet is an outlet for ideas and they should be allowed to flow without government interference in theory, but what happens when the internet is used for accomplishing immoral activity, like terrorism?  Is it still an issue of free speech, or is this now an issue of security? I can't objectively determine if the good that internet has created outweighs the bad. 

My message here, as well as one of the most important things that I have taken away from New Media, New Politics? is that this new wave of communication has brought on the potential for many people to explore and pursue their interest and create accessible ways to create social change.  So much good has already been done using the internet as a tool, but there will always be bad people who take advantage of the same tool. Determining if the internet should be in any way regulated by the government has not been in the forefront of conversation lately but when the news cycle slows and maybe some really bad people start to use the internet to their benefit we might see this conversation come up all across the country. It would be a shame if this turned into a partisan issue. People from all backgrounds and parties should be open to discussion about this issue because determining the answer is not at all easy and people should not take sides until really thinking about the issues at hand. My own opinion at the moment is that the internet should not be regulated. I have not seen enough evidence of immoral uses outweighing the moral, or at least what I consider moral. I believe that the internet has been for the most part good for society as a whole. 

The New Journalism

            Mr. Stephen Glass wrote over forty articles for The New Republic during his three year employment.  However, in 1998, he was released from the publication for apparently falsifying information in nearly thirty of his pieces.  While some news outlets refused to reference Glass’s career as “journalism”, many conveyed it as such. If someone who fabricated at least a portion of at least (confirmed) three-fourths of his articles can be considered a journalist, where is the line drawn?

            In Here Comes Everybody, Shirky states that one of the definitions of a “journalist” is “a person who writes for newspapers or magazines”, according to the Oxford Journal. Even since the publication of this book, the definition has changed. The most recent Merriam-Webster dictionary declares that a journalist is “a writer or editor for a news medium”. Under the new classification, any blogger or internet-oriented writer can be seen as a journalist. On the contrary, journalistic shield laws do not offer constant protection to blogging. The most recent attempt to create a shield for journalists is the Free Flow of Information Act of 2007, which is currently in limbo. This bill, which referred to reporters and journalists as “covered persons” stated:

The term `covered person' means a person who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of the person's livelihood or for substantial financial gain

The broad definition here allows for some safe harbor for bloggers.  Unfortunately, President Bush and his administration have shown displeasure with the Free Flow of Information Act, and it stalled in the Senate before a vote.

            Blogging and the internet are now more than ever at the forefront of the media sphere. Traditional news sources take hours, if not days to properly prepare a story and take it to press. On the internet, an amateur can create his own site and post information within minutes. While the legislation may have stalled, the news cycle is speeding up exponentially. The blogosphere requires at minimum internet access; Twitter allows users to post concise blurbs via text message.

            The debate over journalistic shielding has affected the life of blogger Josh Wolf. He spent 226 days in a jail for refusing to turn over footage of a protest in San Francisco. Wolf was not protected from federal scrutiny due to the current definition of a journalist, even though he considers himself one; in fact, the federal government does not have shield laws whatsoever.

            The two most important questions, in summation, are as follows: What is a journalist? And secondly, how can the federal government define the ever-changing media world?

The Democratization of Information and the Dawn of a New Political Age

I think that it is safe to say that throughout our studies, blog postings and analyses this semester we have made an extraordinary case for the blog-driven revolution of both politics and media.

At the start of this journey I had only extremely limited experience with the blogosphere.  Blogs were almost entirely off my news radar as I turned mostly to elite media news sites for my daily political fix.  During this “dark age” (as I now fondly refer to my pre-blogging days) I never questioned how or why elite media organizations set their respective agendas.  Throughout this course however I have come to understand the concepts of agenda setting, framing and most importantly, the emerging role of the blogosphere as a driving force behind the elite media narrative.  As I noted in my response to an earlier blogging assignment:

It is extremely rare that I ever see a story broken on any major news network that had not already been identified and discussed to death on a blog somewhere...

The blogosphere has several tremendous advantages over more traditional forms of media.  Blogs can proudly flaunt their ideological bias, foster two-way dialogue via their comments pages, and tap into a network of bloggers (potential reporters) far greater than any major media establishment.   Not to mention their freedom from any constraints of scheduling or time.  As a result the blogosphere is a breeding ground for all types of news that might not catch old media’s attention. 

As the title of Chapter 3 of Shirky’s book so aptly puts it: “Everyone Is A Media Outlet”.   In this chapter Shirky elaborates on the role that he sees blogs filling in the “mass amateurization” of reporting (Shirky 61).  In this new climate, it only takes one “amateur” to launch a story from obscurity to national front-page headlines.  In her post entitled “An Election to Remember”, Megan lists some of the most glaring examples of this revolution that we have witnessed during the past election cycle including Obama’s “cling to guns and religion” quote, and “lipstick on a pig” comment.

Where then does this leave elite media organizations as we head into the future?  The blogosphere, as part of the larger informational revolution of the Internet, is currently forcing a massive upheaval in the structure of the American news media.  Richard recently pointed out the dire state of the newspaper industry.  The old media juggernauts do however have some substantial advantages over the blogosphere.  They still have much larger (although constantly shrinking) operating budgets and a wealth of expert reporters.  In his article for the New Yorker entitled “Out of Print”, Eric Alterman writes:

Despite the many failures at newspapers, the vast majority of reporters and editors have devoted years, even decades, to understanding the subjects of their stories. It is hard to name any bloggers who can match the professional expertise, and the reporting, of, for example, the Post ’s Barton Gellman and Dana Priest, or the Times’ Dexter Filkins and Alissa Rubin.

In the same article Alterman quotes Arianna Huffington:

“Bloggers are not chewing on the news. They are spitting it out.”

This to me is the crux of the matter and leads me to wonder why we cannot develop a media landscape that plays to the strengths of everyone involved.  I first raised this question in my earlier post entitled “Not your father’s Presidential Campaign":

What if we leave the soundbites and the breaking news stories to the blogs and other forms of new media while the elite media uses their vast financial resources and talent pool to provide deeper and more measured analysis over a longer period of time?  

Let the bloggers spit and the elite media chew.  This is the only dynamic I can foresee that results in the sustained existence of old media organizations while simultaneously offering a valuable service to the public.  The threat to this paradigm however is the ever-changing redistribution of analytical talent and resources from old media to new.  Every time one of the most widely read blogs hires away a resourceful reporter from the elite media world this relationship further evolves.  If this trend continues there may be no role for print media to play in any substantial way in the near future.

The Obama campaign was the first to utilize the Internet in a truly meaningful way.  Paul highlighted Obama’s use of both facebook and youtube as organizing resources.  The way in which politicians interact with the public has reached a tipping point.  Either political candidates can embrace the changes or resign themselves to defeat.  It will be fascinating to study how Obama continues his use of the web as a means of more directly reaching his constituents during his Presidency.  There is no turning back and the next Presidential candidate to come along will have to build on the Obama framework and even take it one step further to remain competitive in this rapidly evolving media and informational climate.

From Newspapers to Newsreaders: The Quest for Contemporary Eclecticism

Much of our classroom discussion over the last semester was premised on the future of "old media", especially newspapers, which are currently hemorrhaging funds. We came to a general consensus that they may transform into something resembling an online content portal/filter, coasting off of their huge brand for readership. Many speculate that this will generate enough income to sustain pieces of "traditional journalism" into the future. As we speculate, we wait for something big to happen - a giant to fall. For better or worse, it may happen sooner than you think.

Throughout the semester, we analyzed a handful of trends like these - from the supersonic two-hour news cycle of this last election to Clay Shirky's tagline, "the power of organizing without organizations". We observed how blogs were pushing stories to the forefront of traditional media and how investigations from these traditional sources trickled down to the partisan blogs as evidence that fit into their distinct frame.

Although we covered so much in our lectures, readings, posts, and discussions, looking back, I feel that we took an important aspect of our changing media world for granted. That is, how does an individual consumer of information fit into all of this? How does this changing landscape affect our responsibility to ourselves and each other as consumers?

On the first day of class, Alex had us take the Gladwell Test, to see whether we were "connectors" - people with a certain threshold of connections to others, vital for networking. A related topic is that of the thought leader, someone who has a substantial intellectual influence on the people in his or her life. Some of us were dubbed "connectors", but many of us weren't. However, due to our shared interest in politics and world affairs, I'm willing to bet we all influence (read: we're thought leaders) for our friends and family on a day to day basis.

Similar to how many of us see the future of the newspaper as a filter, we are information filters to many of the people in our lives. It's an enormous responsibility for citizens of a democracy - one we should take seriously. In addition to talk over dinner, much of the technology we discussed all semester enables us to pass stories, comments, and opinions on to others. Although many of us will cease blogging after the semester ends, it's trivial to continue. Microblogging sites like Twitter or features like the status message of Facebook make it effortless, perhaps even addicting.

In one of my favorite books, The Assault on Reason, former Vice-President Al Gore argues that democracy is only sustainable in a nation with a healthy marketplace of ideas, where information flows freely and the citizenry can discern the media's intent. Clearly, information flows more freely than ever. The two traditional barriers to the consumption of information in our democracy, money and time, have been diminished. The financial barrier has collapsed as ads take the place of subscriptions, and as cellphones get smarter, we're more connected than ever.

However, as Kevin begins to ask in his final post, are we better off? With content slanted to specific viewpoints, you can get any story framed exactly the way you want it. The potential for niche blogs to contribute to extreme political polarization is frightening, and therefore, we must be vigilant in our individual efforts to avoid this pitfall.

As a result, I propose that each of us forms our own media and information consumption strategy. Throughout our lives, we've been taught study, fitness, and organizational strategies. Yet, I'm confident that I'm not the only person who was never formally educated on achieving contemporary eclecticism.

My advice on this subject is in no way profound or original, but circumstances make it worthy of writing here:

Read. Read a lot. Read a lot from many sources.

Sure, you can read sites that share your personal political views. And yes, it's great to read elite media or non-partisan blogs for analysis of complicated situations. But, why not try subscribing to a feed whose content you normally disagree with? Assuming it doesn't inspire you to violence, you will learn more about yourself and the world than you could by solely reading what you want to read.

Today, you're the media outlet. Remember, you're more important to your friends and family than most newspapers and TV shows. Develop and challenge your worldview by reading dissenting opinion. Subsequently, go out and be the filter you want to see in the world. Perhaps you'll accumulate some followers who trust you to help shape the person they're becoming; enjoy the power, but use it wisely.

An Election to Remember

While I wasn't an avid blogger prior to this class, I did regularly read news and some liberal blogs, mainly ABC's The Note, WashPo's The Fix, and Talking Points Memo. Like most Americans, I selectively exposed myself to political ideologies similar to my own (just as my dad relies on "The O'Reilly Factor" for his news). However, upon taking this class, I decided to read blogs ideologically dissimilar from my own and join the right-of-center blog group.  After months of reading and analyzing the blogosphere, several key things have emerged. The most notable is seeing how blogs can not only influence the mainstream media, but also politics itself.

At the start of the semester, the blogs mainly focused on the financial crisis (and fittingly so). At the time, it seemed as though the blogosphere echoed the major events of the day. However, I soon discovered that blogs not only covered popular stories of the day, but also created its own. While the elite media still plays a major role in politics, blogs can have just as much of an impact, if not more. While blogs may not be factually accurate all the time, they can break stories that the major media outlets then pick up. For example, in class, we learned that the Drudge Report was responsible for breaking the Monica Lewinsky scandal during President Clinton's administration. While elite media like Newsweek hesitated to publish the story, DR did so, illustrating the impact blogs can have. This election cycle saw similar news breaks, although none arguably as controversial as that one. 

For instance, Obama's whole "cling to guns or religion" debacle started in a blog (HuffPo?) and was then picked up by major media outlets. This became a major talking point against Obama as the Democratic primaries carried on. It would have went unnoticed had it not been for blogs. In this information age, Clay Shirky writes about how dramatically connected we've become to one another, causing a story to go from local to national (or even global) in the blink of an eye. Similarly, the blogosphere generated a lot of buzz over Obama's "lipstick on a pig" remarks. The right-of-center blogs kept on attacking the Democratic candidate for his supposed sexist remarks (See Hot Air), while the left-of-center blogs tried to pass it over as an exaggeration by the McCain campaign (See DailyKos). Another prominent guest in the blogosphere (well, mainly the right-of-center one) was Obama's supposed terrorist buddy, Bill Ayers. While Sarah Palin was mainly responsible for Ayers' sudden "importance" in the election, the right bloggers further elaborated upon her claims that Obama was "palling around with terrorists." One specific PowerLine post on the matter stuck with me from one of my posts. In it, the blogger writes: "Sarah Palin's calling out of Barack Obama over the Bill Ayers connection has finally caused some mainstream outlets to report the story (albeit generally in misleading fashion)." This caught my attention for several reasons. First, it's insinuating that the Ayers controversy erupted in the blogosphere and was then brought into the mainstream. This highlights the importance of blogs and politics and demonstrates the idea that with the Internet, the past becomes the present. Everything from a candidate's past can come back to haunt him or her, as clearly demonstrated during this past election cycle.  Secondly, it brings up, while somewhat subtly, the idea of bias in the media with the phrase 'misleading fashion,' hinting at the mainstream media's supposed 'liberal' bias.

Every person favors a particular bias whether they want to admit it or not. The same can be said about the media, most notably and obviously, blogs. Kevin already noted how blogs cater towards their audience. Since conservatives are the primary audience of the right-of-center blogs, it only makes sense that their posts slant to the right. People read, listen, or watch things that are ideologically similar to them as a reinforcement of their beliefs. Bias also plays a major role in media outlets. As discussed in class, reporters of objective fact really don't exist, as much as we want them to. Media organizations makes choices on what to cover and what not to and by doing so create bias; it wouldn't be possible to cover everything nor would partisan blogs want to. By choosing what they cover and how they cover it, we learned that media outlets can set the agenda and even prime citizens to think a certain way. In particular, framing bias was very relevant over the past few months. Small-town pastoralism was highly linked with Sarah Palin, who often referred to "Joe Six-Pack" and how she was from just your average Wasilla family. Similarly, moderatism was linked with Obama. In one of my posts, I held that conservatives aimed to paint Obama as an extremely partisan and radical candidate that couldn't be trusted. According to this framing bias, extremism, partisanship, and anger are bad. Republicans, notably the right-wing blogs, continued to frame Obama as extremist and partisan, making him bad by default. They aimed to portray him a certain way to the citizenry.

Over the past few months, the right-of-center blogs (and left-of-center) have attacked their opposing candidate in hopes of portraying them as the wrong candidate. Conservative blogs criticized Obama, Biden, and several other Democratic leaders constantly. From what I've noticed thus far, this critical trend is likely to continue in the coming months. Even since the election ended, the right-wing blogs have already begun criticizing Obama's administration without it even starting yet, from his character to his cabinet appointments. I believe that they will play the same role the left-wing blogs presumably did during the Bush administration, that of watchdog (and probably attack dog). 

One thing that wasn't really touched upon in class or in the reading was the impact of the Internet, specifically blogs, on American democracy. With the Internet, we have achieved truly free speech. Anybody can express whatever they want somewhere on blogs and different outlets of information are readily available. However, only the popular blogs really get noticed. For most people, their voices become lost in a sea of opinion, with some blogs being neglected completely. On another note, much of the populace chooses not to take full advantage of available news sites, instead opting to neglect getting information or getting it from blogs. While they may do as they please, this may present a problem in our democratic system. In order to have political participation, we need a well-informed electorate. They need factual, unbiased information in order to make rational decisions and so that they aren't easily manipulated by political parties. If people choose to only read partisan blogs, they receive biased information that consequently affects their political decisions. People's minds become closed to different viewpoints and open, political discourse may be threatened. 

As mentioned, I never read conservative blogs prior to this semester. I initially struggled to let go of my own political views and focus on the right-wing blogs for strict analysis. Oftentimes when I read a bizarre claim, I wanted to comment on the post in response. However, after a few weeks of practice, I was able to analyze more effectively. When I read a blog like Hot Air, I analyzed what they were writing, seeing which topics they focused on or how they framed a particular event. I learned to open myself to a variety of blogs and consequently different viewpoints. Although I was exposed to conservative thought all semester, my political views remain unaltered. However, I can see more clearly where my opposition comes from. Also, reading conservative blogs has also showed me that some things need to be taken with a grain of salt, especially partisan blogs. Some of the claims I read on the blogs (like Obama being a socialist) seemed completely absurd. Now, when I go back to reading more liberal leaning blogs, I will do so with a much more cautious eye.

Now Now Now

We've been discussing for the past 15 weeks how blogs have changed politics. And, as I said in my last post, I agree. But, as we've also seen in the last few classes, these media "revolutions" have occurred throughout history. The printing press changed how the Church could preach, mostly because the people could now read the Bible for themselves and interpret the text. So, priests had to...you know...tell the truth. It revolutionized the way by which our leaders communicated with their constituencies and/or congregations. The postal service did another disservice to our leaders when it connected people who lived on opposite sides of the country. The television gave people a chance to see their leaders from the comfort of their own home and judge them for their appearances and sweaty foreheads. Then the internet came around, and the game changed again, but not in a totally surprising way. The internet connects people, like the postal service, but in a fraction of the time. It's a wonder to me that politicians have not yet fully adapted to the consequences of our new technologies. Cell phones, digital cameras, and a slew of other technologies allow normal people to capture abnormal behavior, and let the world see it instantaneously. If normal people can capture things like senators ranting some racist rant, what's going to stop the elite media from picking up where normal people are left in the dust?

My biggest concern as I read blogs this semester was about how they are used by bloggers. Sometimes a new technology is created, but we do not figure out how to maximize it's potential until too late, until we have exploited it (or it exploits us...like in "The Matrix"). I'm always hesitant to read a blog because I'm afraid it will just be partisan rhetoric, with no real analysis of news. And if I want analysis, I'll read the Times. But there are some important differences. Like we talked about, the level of segmentation in the blogosphere is mind-boggling. From left-of-center blogs to blogs about someone's experiences abroad, the internet is full of opinionated posts from every angle. Shirky would agree that blogs connect people with specific interests. I found a blog for people with the last name Pepper. I'd fit right in, right? I don't know...

But these partisan blogs, from Talking Points Memo to Hot Air, also contribute to the cycle of media news I find most distressing: what Jon Stewart would refer to as "partisan hackery." I've written about this numerous times this semester (here especially), and even though my experiences in the blogosphere have opened my eyes to a number of positive aspects of this news media revolution, I still remain cautious. I don't want to live in a world of selectivity and bias, where people do, in fact, get their news from The Daily Show and not from the Times or the Tribune. You can argue as much as you against the old media (even though Judith Miller doesn't help my case...) but I still find myself look to nytimes.com for my morning read, rather than Drudge or Daily Kos. I've never been a fan of the tabloids.

But, as I said before, and seeing as my opinions won't change anything, I find that politicians should have found their footing on the blogosphere long ago. This election showed the power of the internet and of the blog. I respectfully disagree with Paul, and I think that even the most insignificant of gaffes stuck with the people, and I think that's largely due to the attention they got on the blogs, and consequently in the elite media outlets.

One more thing: the difference between partisan blogs and so-called news blogs was glaring. The latter are just boring. I don't care what some real journalist thinks...I'll just read his real article. If I want someone's opinion, I'll read their partisan blogs, where they can rail against candidates and chant my candidate's name. News blogs, to me, have no purpose, except to bypass an editor. But is anyone really that desperate for news that they can't wait for the morning? I guess the answer is yes. And that's why blogs have changed things. People are more impatient than ever. They need the news now now now. And now now now, they can get it, biased or not so much.