Author: Max Weidman
It’s nice to see Weekly writers voicing concern for the integrity of journalism. Unfortunately Jon Kirby’s concern-which is probably akin to that of Ted Koppel, whom he references-is that of a worried dinosaur. Everybody knows that the internet moves faster than traditional news media could ever dream of. Even Kirby knows it: “Internet phenomena like cragslist.com and the blogosphere threaten institutions like the L.A. Times, providing ad space and commentary on current events faster and cheaper than the daily paper can.” And this is bad? Here are all the things the Internet provides better than your local newspaper: the weather, space for personal advertisements, theatrical/cinematic/musical etc. reviews and showtimes, and the opportunity of meeting a compelling stranger who shares your weird affinity for publishing their personal specs in hope someone will want to date them. Clearly, if the Internet better facilitates these sorts of exchanges, why should we not nurture it over outmoded technologies like print?
Kirby’s article, as I read it, centers on the concept of “need.” The first mention of the word is directed at alternative media, which Kirby asserts “remain largely dependent on traditional media sources. The blogosphere doesn’t have a staff of field reporters on the ground; instead they comment on stories reported by the mainstream news.” I think this is valid, up to a point, but that doesn’t necessarily make it meaningful. Bloggers don’t shoulder cameras “in the field” because they don’t have press passes, not necessarily because they’re unqualified or lazy. Press passes are not, in fact, such easy things to acquire. Those who wish to talk politics/science/culture etc. (read: news) are forced to rely on the traditional purveyors of footage. Furthermore, I think the blogosphere is at this point far too pervasive and powerful a phenomenon to essentialize it. I would, however, concede that alternative media is dependent on traditional media sources insofar as the shortcomings of those sources prompts intellectual response, which comprises the majority of blog fodder.
His second deployment of “need” is far more insidious. The thrust of his argument seems to be that these alternative news sources are obscuring what Americans really need to be hearing. Kirby consents that traditional news sources are guilty of this as well, in what he deems a “shift” from journalistic integrity to business. Of course it isn’t the fault of individual journalists like poor Kirby; it’s the big bad suits who pull the strings. I think this is mostly bogus. The news has always been a business; if there is a “shift” it is from journalistic integrity to entertainment. But that’s not what irks me. It’s the assertion of necessity. Who are you to tell me what I need to be hearing?
American Journalism, as much as it would like to cite evidence to the contrary, is probably just as much of a paternalistic, racist, sexist, etc. institution as any other in the U.S. Yet its members consistently neglect to recognize that their brand of information dissemination is, like any other, based on a particular (and in this case dominant) perspective. This is what Kirby is really trying to ensure, that journalism as a mode of discourse retains its ascendancy. While dinosaurs like Koppel and Kirby are parading around in the guise of “integrity” or “objectivity” or whatever other excuses power uses to justify itself, bloggers are engaging in the only semblance of objectivity the digital postmodern world allows: multiplicity. This is why hypertext is better than print, because it fosters not only various and competing perspectives but a sense of community. If information is a commodity, traditional news media is a capitalist mode of exchange, while alternative media is primarily concerned with the lateral dispersion of information in order to combat uneven power distribution of information/capital, which is concentrated in the hands of a few “Newspaper Men.” In traditional media, the consumption of information is directly proportional to the material power of its source. On the internet, consumption of information has much more to do with hyperlinking; the product gains visibility through relating itself meaningfully to other products.
There is a specter haunting traditional media; it is the specter of interconnectedness, of hypertextual subjectivity. The Internet scares people because you can’t go knock on its door, or send it a nasty letter like this one. Newsmen across America have (finally) pulled their fingers out of their butts and are desperately looking for somewhere to point them, but the big bad internet won’t even let them do that. Because the internet, and the (relatively greater) freedom of expression it provides, will murder anything that purports to be more important, legitimate or reliable than itself . . . until something that actually is in turn murders it. This is why the pimps of traditional media are losing ground; they try to negate the importance of the blogosphere and, in doing so, perform the most wonderful exhibitions of their own futility. This is why alternative media is more viable-it is fully conscious of and even obsessed with its own subjectivity; it does not feel compelled to make alienating claims to the contrary.
Newspapers will not die, and I don’t want them to. Hopefully they will recognize the void which these alternatives are filling and make some changes in order to better serve the needs of the community. Because it all comes back to need. Necessity is the mother of invention. Journalism, meet your new baby sister, the Internet. If you treat her nice now, when she’s all grown up you can totally scam on all her slutty digitechnocyber girlfriends. For now, I think I need cats like Kos (a famous and provocative liberal blogger) just as much as I need CNN to tell me about Britney’s shaved head . . . and if that sounds sarcastic, believe me, I need to be told about Britney. I am happy to live in the digital morass, to wade through it with the kind of attention and wariness that any vehicle for information should be deal with. But I am not happy about all the people telling me the Internet isn’t legitimate, or reliable. Firstly, what is? Secondly, who cares? It does bring a smile to my face, however, when I think about how guys like Kirby probably use Wikipedia to do research for their newspaper articles. Suckers.
Max Weidman is a sophomore ECLS Major. He can be reached at mweidman@oxy.edu
This article has been archived, for more requests please contact us via the support system.
