Move to online news is dangerous for media freedom and diversity
December 27th, 2008 |
Everyone knows print media, particularly the daily newspaper, is on the ropes. According to a recent Pew Research Center study, this year, for the first time, the internet has surpassed the popularity of newspapers as a source of national and international news.
Source: Pew Foundation
Fortunately, television, cited by 70% of respondents as their primary news source, continues to lead, with CNN as the most watched network. I say fortunately, because I think the imminent demise of the daily paper has dangerous implications for the freedom and diversity of journalism.
When I was in journalism school, broadcast news, and particularly television news, was considered superficial and not as credible as print. The New York Times, Washington Post and Christian Science Monitor were held up as examples of the highest standards of journalistic excellence.
In October, the Christian Science Monitor announced it was shutting down its print version and moving all of its reporting online. Every time a traditional print publication shuts down or trims staff, and every time there’s an industry report on the ever widening gap between print and online readership, there are those (like myself) who mourn the loss of media diversity and those who say things like, “So what? If newspapers are irrelevant to readers, they deserve to fail.”
Typical of the responses by those not concerned with this trend are these remarks by Cyrus Farivar on Salon.com:
“I know that the Monitor is still a well-respected paper, but honestly, I don’t know anyone who reads it regularly (except for maybe a few journalism professors), and so it seems that this is the way to go if they want to survive.
As Andie Tucher, an associate professor at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, told the AP, the Monitor is usually a second-read analysis newspaper, not a must-read:‘That’s the real crisis for papers like this,’ she said. ‘Rather than reading that as my second or third paper, I now go online and browse Slate and Salon and the political sites, and I can read any other paper I like. It becomes much less urgent to indulge in the Christian Science Monitor.’
Further, I don’t know any of my peers in the 18-35 demographic who subscribe to a print newspaper on a daily basis, but I would argue that most of my friends are better informed as they keep up with the world online on a more constant basis.
Why do I think this is dangerous? With the rejection of print media and increasing reliance on the internet, we are quickly headed to a system based on a single news distribution channel. That’s fine in a free society, but history has shown over and over that governments long to control the media. And the internet is by no means a bastion of press freedom.
Obviously there are checks and balances, but how hard would it be for a government to lock down the internet? With the power of the government and its previously demonstrated willingness to ignore fundamental rights in a “national emergency,” could probably be done in a few hours.
The Worldwide Press Freedom Index compiled by Reporters Without Borders found that internet filtering and monitoring are common in many nations, as are arrests for dissident remarks: http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=29031
“In Egypt (146th of 173), demonstrations launched online shook the capital and alarmed the government, which now regards every Internet user as a potential danger. The use of Internet filtering is growing by the year and the most repressive governments do not hesitate to jail bloggers. While China (167th) still leads the ‘Internet black hole’ ranking worldwide, deploying considerable technical resources to control Internet users, Syria (159th) is the Middle-East champion in cyber-repression. Internet surveillance is so thorough there that even the least criticism posted online is sooner or later followed by arrest.”
It’s not just a third world/emerging world problem. The 2001 U.S. Patriot Act granted broad government latitude and loosened restrictions on wiretaps, access to information, subpoenas, and other investigative tools. The Patriot Act has been used against the media. For example, in September, 2003, the FBI invoked the Act in its investigation of hacker Adrian Lamo in what The Register referred to as bypassing the First Amendment.
I don’t have any “answers” to this imminent loss of media diversity and freedom, and the potential for near complete government control of the internet. I do think we need to be careful about mindlessly bashing print (which is not the same as saying “it’s not convenient for me” or “it’s not how I prefer to get my news,” which are perfectly OK.) And more importantly, we need to remember that with consolidation of any kind, comes a loss of diversity and the potential for abuse.
The internet is not the solution to every problem we face.
Tags: The New York Times, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, CNN, Pew Research Center, Cyrus Farivar, Salon.com, Patriot Act, Worldwide Press Freedom Index, Reporters Without Borders
| Sphere This |
If the government wants to shutdown or censor the press, they’ve been able to find the newspaper.
Internet sources are harder to control, and more similar to having the effects that the copier and fax had on the late soviet union.
In terms of diversity, the Net is much more than the mainstream print.
I would miss the readability of paper, and the depth of reporting that some papers still perform.
Comment by Bill Cheswick — December 27, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
You write: “With the rejection of print media and increasing reliance on the internet, we are quickly headed to a system based on a single news distribution channel.”
However, which do you think is harder to control, the Internet, or a printing press and/or radio/TV tower?
Comment by Cyrus Farivar — December 28, 2008 @ 4:55 am
Thanks for these thought provoking comments.
I wasn’t advocating a return to print media as a way of ensuring diversity and freedom. I am suggesting that a loss of news channels and subsequent centralization on the internet is more dangerous than most people imagine.
From a purely administrative standpoint, it would be MUCH easier for a government to take control of the internet than it would be to control a network of underground printers. Granted, today there are millions of blogs, with just as many diverse points of view, but you don’t have to shut down millions of blogs to control all internet media. All you have to do is control the backbone. ISPs and web site operators can all be monitored and controlled from a single PC or laptop, and many countries have found it a simple matter to filter undesirable content and shut down dissenting media sources with the flip of a switch.
Independent printing presses can be controlled as well, but would require a major administrative effort, and physical house-to-house enforcement. We know governments that have mounted these kinds of campaigns before, so they’re not impossible, but are much more difficult than an internet lockdown, and much more visible.
The internet is too easily subject to the centralized control of an abusive authority. Once that happens, as it has in China and elsewhere, diversity, whether real or an illusion, goes away at the blink of an eye.
Comment by joel — December 28, 2008 @ 7:13 pm
[...] Social media and PR. A thought provoking article on the demise of the newspaper and the implications for freedom and diversity of opinion and news F.A.D.S. (Fight Against [...]
Pingback by blogs to get your teeth into | MEGO: My Eyes Glaze Over — February 24, 2009 @ 8:53 am