Publishing and power
Aug. 29th, 2005 05:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
debgeislerFrederick S. Siebert designed his Four Theories of the Press to illustrate the ways in which press ownership and control were evolving and reflecting changes in the geo-political climate of various world powers. His 1963 work (with Peterson and Schramm) was embedded in 300 years of history, the Cold War, and a basic belief that press controls were evolving from libertarian principles developed by Locke and Milton and Hume, to a kind of "social responsibility" approach that would be liberating, freeing.
Simply, a "social responsibility" approach to press ownership and control argues that anyone who wishes may publish (cf. the "libertarian" understanding, which is that whoever has the economic means to do so may publish). In the ideal, this evolved "social responsibility" approach would reflect the diversity of viewpoints and access to vast quantities of information. The press (and its representatives) would act in the best interests of the society/the people, and not just of the market.
Siebert and colleagues wrote about this potential in 1963, three years before the publication of Lawrence Roberts' seminal paper (on time-sharing computers) which provided the foundation for the ARPANET. They could not truly envision the world of 42 years later -- where the average person in the U.S. can walk into a public library and get free access to international publishing.
Under "social responsibility," the evolved and enlightened control of press access, professionals using the means of production of news and views would, of course, understand their ethical responsiblities. They would fairly, accurately, carefully report. They would understand that publishing was power, and that power carries with it responsibility, and responsibility requires caution and tempering.
Well, Siebert (and the proponents of Social Responsibility) were wrong.
Oh, there were some stirrings of a desire for a more socially responsible press in the 1960s and 1970s. Then we got a time of decreasing readership in the mainstream printed press, increasing viewership in television, discovery of the rapid liquidity to be had from buying a TV station and milking it to support other flagging enterprises, and other [Rupert Murdoch] painful lessons of the realities of press ownership and control. The "professional press" has continued in decline, giving us such wonderful examples as Jayson Blair and Mike Barnicle.
And what of today? In 2002, Dave Winer and Martin Nisenholtz entered into the second of the recorded Long Bets, which was that, "In a Google search of five keywords or phrases representing the top five news stories of 2007, weblogs will rank higher than the New York Times' web site." There's a damned good chance that Winer will win this bet, as a resurgence of amateur journalism (far more wide-spread than the APAs of the 1930s) flares around the globe.
Bloggers are amateur journalists, or they are diarists, or they are contemplative philosophers, or they are self-indulgent souls with a keyboard and a 'net link. (And no, you don't get a prize for figuring out which one of those I am.) But because bloggers function in an amateur world where they have no one they need to please besides themselves, there are no external (some would claim *arbitrary*) imposers of ethical values on what bloggers do.
Other sorts of amateur journalists abound online. Some create online pubs, where there's no bricks-and-paper version, anymore, but there is something that has all of the earmarks of a 'zine...whether it's a newszine or a personal 'zine or a genzine, or whatever.
Other kinds of web sites have taken a track somewhere between the static webzine and the fluid blog and staked out territory to something very content rich and dynamic.
All of this is very exciting, but uncontrolled. I like the excitement. The belief that, somewhen, the Fourth Estate will grow to encompass the millions who are connecting to each other, to current events, to possiblities implicit in the cyber experience -- that's damned heady stuff.
But. I've watched people use blogs and web sites and online 'zines to perpetuate feuds. To cause harm to people who can't readily fight back. To show only their side of the story to those who read their columns. And I am saddened and appalled and not at all surprised.
They are intellectual bullies. They abuse power. How ineluctably sad.
It would have been nice to believe (and, in my little broken-idealist heart, I did...for a while) that people might use the new tools better than they used the old ones. But really, they act just like monkeys who have discovered fire.
Get all excited.
Warm self by nice yellow flames.
Then torch the next monkey's fur.
Simply, a "social responsibility" approach to press ownership and control argues that anyone who wishes may publish (cf. the "libertarian" understanding, which is that whoever has the economic means to do so may publish). In the ideal, this evolved "social responsibility" approach would reflect the diversity of viewpoints and access to vast quantities of information. The press (and its representatives) would act in the best interests of the society/the people, and not just of the market.
Siebert and colleagues wrote about this potential in 1963, three years before the publication of Lawrence Roberts' seminal paper (on time-sharing computers) which provided the foundation for the ARPANET. They could not truly envision the world of 42 years later -- where the average person in the U.S. can walk into a public library and get free access to international publishing.
Under "social responsibility," the evolved and enlightened control of press access, professionals using the means of production of news and views would, of course, understand their ethical responsiblities. They would fairly, accurately, carefully report. They would understand that publishing was power, and that power carries with it responsibility, and responsibility requires caution and tempering.
Well, Siebert (and the proponents of Social Responsibility) were wrong.
Oh, there were some stirrings of a desire for a more socially responsible press in the 1960s and 1970s. Then we got a time of decreasing readership in the mainstream printed press, increasing viewership in television, discovery of the rapid liquidity to be had from buying a TV station and milking it to support other flagging enterprises, and other [Rupert Murdoch] painful lessons of the realities of press ownership and control. The "professional press" has continued in decline, giving us such wonderful examples as Jayson Blair and Mike Barnicle.
And what of today? In 2002, Dave Winer and Martin Nisenholtz entered into the second of the recorded Long Bets, which was that, "In a Google search of five keywords or phrases representing the top five news stories of 2007, weblogs will rank higher than the New York Times' web site." There's a damned good chance that Winer will win this bet, as a resurgence of amateur journalism (far more wide-spread than the APAs of the 1930s) flares around the globe.
Bloggers are amateur journalists, or they are diarists, or they are contemplative philosophers, or they are self-indulgent souls with a keyboard and a 'net link. (And no, you don't get a prize for figuring out which one of those I am.) But because bloggers function in an amateur world where they have no one they need to please besides themselves, there are no external (some would claim *arbitrary*) imposers of ethical values on what bloggers do.
Other sorts of amateur journalists abound online. Some create online pubs, where there's no bricks-and-paper version, anymore, but there is something that has all of the earmarks of a 'zine...whether it's a newszine or a personal 'zine or a genzine, or whatever.
Other kinds of web sites have taken a track somewhere between the static webzine and the fluid blog and staked out territory to something very content rich and dynamic.
All of this is very exciting, but uncontrolled. I like the excitement. The belief that, somewhen, the Fourth Estate will grow to encompass the millions who are connecting to each other, to current events, to possiblities implicit in the cyber experience -- that's damned heady stuff.
But. I've watched people use blogs and web sites and online 'zines to perpetuate feuds. To cause harm to people who can't readily fight back. To show only their side of the story to those who read their columns. And I am saddened and appalled and not at all surprised.
They are intellectual bullies. They abuse power. How ineluctably sad.
It would have been nice to believe (and, in my little broken-idealist heart, I did...for a while) that people might use the new tools better than they used the old ones. But really, they act just like monkeys who have discovered fire.
Get all excited.
Warm self by nice yellow flames.
Then torch the next monkey's fur.