We here on D-Kos are part of a revolution in information technology. Information, misinformation, disinformation, satirical fiction and just plain lies can now be spread around the world with amazing rapidity.
The duping of CBS over fake memos about President Bush's National Guard service (or lack thereof) caused some commentators to say that control of news has passed out of the hands of the traditional news media. But what is the real importance of this new information medium, the Internet? The wingnut rant is old, I know, but its points are still important, and the attitudes it expresses are still around, so please bear with me.
Disregarding the silliness of the wingnut rant, e.g. the claim that all MSM is liberal and the Internet conservative (which doesn't explain Trent Lott's demotion or Fox News or the Internet driven campaigns of Howard Dean and Wesley Clark) I think that reports of the death of the traditional media have been greatly exaggerated, for several reasons:
- Only big media conglomerates have the staff to troll for news around the world. The role of bloggers is still largely confined to fact checking and backgrounding, e.g. at http://juancole.com/ and such sites. An exception is people who are around breaking news and can directly report it, as at "Baghdad Burning". Most of us depend on the MSM and most of our blogs and diaries consist of links to their info. We echo (some of) their news.
- The documents were not even sent to a blog. Not much news is leaked to a blog, AFAIK. Blogs are gaining attention as a result of their influence on mainstream media outlets, not vice versa. Blogs will not replace the traditional media, in fact they depend on the traditional media for most of their information, which they link to. FreeRepublic.com has been forced to stop reprinting articles in their entirety from MSM outlets. Blogs will continue to flourish and keep feeling out their important niche, but are not about to take over information dissemination.
- The Internet is not so much correcting misinformation as it is leading to a fracturing of perspectives. Conservatives only read conservative sites and liberals liberal sites, for the most part. That's how "Pukin Dog" can think his opinionated, ignorant rants on "Free Republic" are reality, without bothering to fact check some of the outrageous howlers on Fox News. One might as well think that Ted Rall represents mainstream media opinion. By the 2004 campaign this fracturing seems to have reached the point that many people could no longer talk to each other about politics, they could only post messages on sites with like-minded people, echo chambers. I myself stopped reading wingnut sites shortly after the rant in question because I just couldn't take being called a subhuman vermin anymore. I'd much rather hang out here, in a like-minded echo chamber. Pukin Dog may think that conservative bloggers will sweep away the "liberal" news media, but that only shows how intellectually isolated he is, in an Internet cocoon of likeminded conservatives.
- Most of the messages posted on Internet bulletin boards are, at best, bad jokes. I have a friend who logs on to Japan Today just to read the discussions. He's usually doubled up in convulsions of laughter, literally. There are too many people out there who spend more time expressing their opinions than they do getting information.
- The really positive role of the Internet has been in freeing mainstream media around the world. I no longer have to depend on an American media whose reporters have no background in order to get up-to-date information about Africa or the Middle East. I can go to allafrica.com and get information straight from the African press, or check out al-Jazeerah. Globalization cuts all ways. But it seems to be cutting us into pieces more than uniting us, at least so far.