If the news is that important, it will find me.
May 3, 2009This morning, as I spent some time trying to clear out the clutter on my google reader, I came across this interesting article by Brian Stelter for the NY Times, from which this post’s title is taken. While being primarily about the role of Web 2.0 applications in the US elections, it makes an interesting point about the shift in the kind of media consumerism by our generation. The shift from the being only the consumers of media, to its conduits, is indeed happening, and with the kind of irresponsibility shown by the media, this should lead to a better standard. The recent Pink Chaddi campaign got most of its media buzz through on-line means. However, there might be a flip side to this. In a world where He who shouts loudest, wins, one has to wonder if the audience is actually intelligent enough to sift through the crap thrown at them. Who is knowledgeable/credible enough for their opinions to be given publicity? This has long be the purview of the print and broadcast media, who have for the most part done a decent job of it. But what happens when Wall Street Journal and somethingsoreal are equally accessible and compete for the same viewer? Does the post of the news director, along with the qualification it demands, and the experience it holds, become irrelevant?
This model may have such inherent problems, and will surely come under criticism from the traditionalists. However, I think the advantages it gives to free speech, and the eventual liberal shift in discussions well out weigh its cons. Its a complicated model, which should make for an exciting trend, hopefully solving some of the problems mentioned in the previous post, but it something that can only work if this tiny little problem of Net Neutrality doesn’t doom us all.
As a firm believer in the innate self serving nature of human character, I would argue that people tend to beleive what they want to beleive. Barring news events like 9/11, Swine Flu outbreak and the like, most news stories have two sides. For example, when the BJP says congress is soft on Quatrochi, I would ask why the BJP didn’t aggressively pursue Quatrocchi between 1999 and 2004. Say I support the BJP on this issue (for whatever irrational reasons) and yet I find WSJ, NDTV and CNN all rooting for the Congress, I would keep googling till I find a news source, however unprofessional, illegitimate, partisan, right-wing that supports what I want to believe. In such a situation, I’d probably read somethingsoreal more often than WSJ, simply because of a match in ideology.
The fundamental question is – Do people really want unbiased information? Or do they just want to hear what they want to hear (and “feel good”). I don’t think the answer to that is as skewed towards the former as people think, or would like to think.
A related point – Do I want unbiased journalism that doesn’t take a stand on important issues? Or a form journalism even if slightly partisan, that does? Sonia Gandhi is accused on power without responsibility. Disseminating information without taking a stand on the issue is not all that different.
At the core of the issue is – Why do we need a free and fair press at all? My answer is – It is to keep the powers that be, from exercising dictatorial behavior and tendencies, thereby saving the strands of democracy from tearing apart. To that end, I think the Indian media has served its purpose.