Editorial I

The New Media: Anarchy or Democracy?

Journalism is at a crossroads. Such was the message espoused at a recent gathering I attended, hosted by the Committee for Concerned Journalists. The night’s keynote event was a roundtable discussion, moderated by Tom Brokaw on the future of journalism. All the usual worries were voiced, among them the collapse of print journalism and the rise of the blogosphere, leading to the inevitable question: What role will print journalists play in the 21st century?

Once considered the agenda-setters, those reporting the news will have to conform to modernity and revise their roles. Some on the panel believed that journalists must become interpreters, filtering the gargantuan volume of information into something coherent and sensible. Regardless, the consensus was one of positive acceptance. The new forms of media hailed the advent of journalism’s democratization.

But one panelist was alienated from this optimism. She longed for the days of old, when according to her, the presence of two different perspectives adjacent to one another on the front page, forced readers to acknowledge both sides of the story. Whether this was an accurate historical assessment or just delusional nostalgia, I don’t know. Most likely, the truth lay somewhere in between. Her point resonated however. The de-centralization of journalism was not a good thing. No longer forced to rely on the papers, people could seek out what they wanted to hear and not have to acknowledge an alternative perspective. Her vision was not one of journalism’s democratization but rather, the coming of anarchy.

While her argument was persuasive, I did not agree. The coming of the citizen-journalist is a great thing, as it forces the establishment to raise its game and put out a better product. Though the advent of YouTube has most likely ceded breaking news to the domain of the citizen, the introduction of competition will force journalists to research more thoroughly, analyze with greater insight, and portray stories more lucidly. However, it is undeniable that print journalism as once knew it, has lost its primacy.

The responsibility now falls on the citizen to be accountable, and deliver the news in a responsible fashion. It is on this note that I’d like to shed light on two articles, one from the Christian Science Monitor and another from the New York Times.
The first concerns the conflict in Gaza, and the shadow war that accompanied it, brutally fought on an e-battlefield:
“The recent battle in Gaza between Israel and Hamas wasn't only fought with bullets, bombs, and missiles, but also with keystrokes. Observers say that through Facebook, YouTube, and other Web-based applications, the online community participated in shaping the news, and was enlisted in the effort to influence public opinion in an unprecedented – and sometimes worrisome – way.”

The use of media as a weapon is nothing new. But when journalism becomes a battleground, and journalists construe themselves as warriors, quality news experiences a drought. Objectivity, if ever it was, has ceased to be a concern for those who believe the more “information” they can disseminate, the better their cause will be aided. The proliferation of this shoddy content combined with the ability to avoid contradictory viewpoints, i.e. Google Search, means zealous partisans can read within the cozy confines of preach-to-the-choir “commentary”.

The second article, from the Times, highlights one of the more promising aspects of the new media:

“Freedom of speech and the right to assemble are limited in Egypt, which since 1981 has been ruled by Mubarak’s National Democratic Party under a permanent state-of-emergency law. An estimated 18,000 Egyptians are imprisoned under the law, which allows the police to arrest people without charges, allows the government to ban political organizations and makes it illegal for more than five people to gather without a license from the government. Newspapers are monitored by the Ministry of Information and generally refrain from directly criticizing Mubarak. And so for young people in Egypt, Facebook, which allows users to speak freely to one another and encourages them to form groups, is irresistible as a platform not only for social interaction but also for dissent.”

This of course, is one of the best arguments I have seen for the promise of the new media. Journalism’s democratization has enabled repressive societies to follow suit, giving dissenters a medium for free speech.

With great privilege comes great responsibility. Citizen-journalists have been endowed with the tools to shape minds, without fear of being held accountable. Will we act responsibly or will we simply be catalysts the onset anarchic mob rule in journalism.