Prove That The Internet *Isn't* A Fraud By Using Current Examples

This is a discussion I was having over at Alan's blog, but he has a nasty habit of deleting and rewriting comments when he's losing an argument, so I thought I'd start the thread over here on more blog-friendly territory.

Re-posted from Alan's Blog:

Marian [11:19 AM January 23, 2007] The main difference between blogging and journalism isn't professionalism, because of course, there are many dolts in journalism (and some would say that it isn’t in fact a profession, but a trade -- I read that somewhere in the Globe and Mail), and nothing is stopping smart people, or knowledgeable people, or even journalists themselves from blogging. The main difference isn’t professionalism, it’s a relative lack of constraints. So while Mark Starowicz can say (to The Senate Transport and Communications Committee) about television programming in Canada that:

“...Canadian programming is strangled daily. Not because Canadians don't want it. Not because we can't compete with the world. But because it's not the most efficient return on investment, or not the most efficient demographic targeting device to sell consumer products. Why does it have to be? How did the marketing heads of Coca Cola and Canadian Tire become the people who decide what appears on Canadian television? I understand and accept that if a Canadian program isn't popular, has not found a significant audience, it should probably die. But I resent that a Canadian program will not even be born, even if it reaches a large audience, if I can't prove it will sell shampoo.”- But this is clearly not true of online opportunities.

It seems to me that freedom to create is not nothing. Having a big open space to play in, is not nothing. In answer to your question though: One thing that blogs do well is local coverage. Not coincidentally, local coverage is what has been increasingly dropped from news in many areas as a cost saving measure over the last few decades. Here is a site, for instance, that does local blogging: http://placeblogger.com/. On the other hand, I don’t actually concede the point that it’s up to us to prove the worth of a big open space by finding the future masterpieces in it today. Just as it wasn’t up to the founders of Canada or the US to prove the worth of their country in everyday details circa 1776/1867. The internet is a work in progress. “Hah!” I can hear those early critics proclaim, “Those colonials are all just a bunch ridiculous yobs. They’ll never amount to much, mark my words!” Right.

I think it’s important to take note of the fact that this contrast between journalism and citizen journalism occurs in a particular context: When media Barons started taking over newspapers and television stations and merging companies in the 1980s and 90s to form huge media empires, they looked for a way of squeezing more money out of the business. The fastest way, it seemed, was to fire tonnes of staff and concentrate on soft news, fluff, and opinion -- leaving a huge portion of the real news to be done by freelancers and news services. Sometimes they hired a handful of genuine experts to write columns as well. But all of this cost a great deal less than actual journalism which involves real digging, fact checking, and investigative work by several paid staff over a long period of time (and that’s for each story). Thus, after many years of cuts, it became easier for any old bozo to mimic what was actually published in the papers because a lot less of it was what my father (an old time newspaperman) would call journalism. Most people can write fluff and opinion (though many can’t spell) and many don’t need experts to sort through the five or six stories that are being reprinted in all the papers of a given chain. Journalism, contrary to a recent poll of journalists, is not high art, though it can be complex and full of insight etc.. Anyway, if we want more news, the solution is not to blame all our problems on the internet. Instead, we need to change the laws governing media concentration and beef up the CBC.

Alan [12:24 PM January 23, 2007] Similarly, I can still hear those that laughed at the Parisian pneumatic tube mail system of the 1860s not to mention 1909 music by telephone and the speaker chair. Until you can define citizen journalism with any certainty and agreement, praising its success now or in the near future is a bit weak.

Marian [12:46 PM January 23, 2007] As is running it down.

Alan [1:11 PM January 23, 2007] If applying a critical analysis with solid illustrations of similarly failed concepts is "running down" then, again, all that is being confirmed is that wobbly but widely hugged concepts like citizen journalism are most likely a fraud.

Marian [1:18 PM January 23, 2007] There needs to be some middle ground between praising things to the skies and saying it's all crap. I am sympathetic to journalists, but I don't think we should be totally uncritical. Likewise, I think a lot of what is on the internet is awful, but some of it isn't. I think there is a lot of nasty chatter in the press about the internet, not because the internet is a crocheted nose bag, but because it does represent a threat. I think the threat comes from the attractiveness of some of what is out there. Now, we can all sit back and sneer at the many ninnies. Of course, that is always possible. But it proves nothing. And I've always thought that there is something a little sinister in trying to shut stuff down.

Alan [1:22 PM January 23, 2007] I praise not the journalist and have said I am inline to kick at processionalism. I am merely pointing out the citizen journalism is the Emperor with No Clothes 2.0. As for "sneering" that is not anything associated with me or anyone else so it is without merit. We deal in illustrations and argument only.

Marian [1:28 PM January 23, 2007] I still don't concede your premise that we must prove the worth of the internet *to you* using current examples. In any case, as you have pointed out, confirming your own preconceived notions is the point of your blog, so it would be an impossible task.

Alan [1:33 PM January 23, 2007] You have fallen into the trap of rudeness and have been led astray. You do not have to prove anything to me but it is not a premise, it is a courtesy - if you are going to write on the blog of another on a topic, do the other readers the favour of being on point and engaging rather than judging from high as no one really recognizes anyone else as being on high in such a case, just the sidelines. If you cannot prove your argument, check if you actually have an argument and then see if there is proof and add that, too. But you know this.

In my opinion Alan's argument is along the lines of proving a negative: Prove to me that God *does not* exist even though I am a Christian. If you cannot show me examples of God's non-existence (and I get to judge which are true examples and which are bogus examples), then God exists. I say the burden of proof does not lie with us. We do not need to show Alan that the internet does not suck. Alan's saying that it does suck, does not prove that it sucks. But Alan knows that.