Audience Atomization Overcome: Why the Internet Weakens the Authority of the Press.
Take a sheet of paper and make a big circle in the middle. In the center of that circle draw a smaller one to create a doughnut shape. Label the doughnut hole “sphere of consensus.” Call the middle region “sphere of legitimate debate,” and the outer region “sphere of deviance.”
[…]
In the age of mass media, the press was able to define the sphere of legitimate debate with relative ease because the people on the receiving end were atomized— meaning they were connected “up” to Big Media but not across to each other. But today one of the biggest factors changing our world is the falling cost for like-minded people to locate each other, share information, trade impressions and realize their number. Among the first things they may do is establish that the “sphere of legitimate debate” as defined by journalists doesn’t match up with their own definition.
In the past there was nowhere for this kind of sentiment to go. Now it collects, solidifies and expresses itself online. Bloggers tap into it to gain a following and serve demand. Journalists call this the “echo chamber,” which is their way of downgrading it as a reliable source. But what’s really happening is that the authority of the press to assume consensus, define deviance and set the terms for legitimate debate is weaker when people can connect horizontally around and about the news.
h/t
A commentor notes – “Journalists “draw a circle” and label it a sphere. How fitting somehow.”
Flashback to the 2007 SDA reader occupation survey (of the first 630+ respondants)
engineers: 61
computer programmers/consultants/systems analysts: 47
management: 46
military: 36
educators: 31
scientists: 28
small business: 28
technicians/technologists: 27
accountants/bookkeepers/economists/taxation/insurance: 24
construction/electricians/plumbers/carpenters/contractors: 23
financiers/brokers/bankers: 21
farmer/rancher/cowboy/agriculture/veterinary: 19
stay-at-home parents: 18
consultants: 18
sales: 16
pilots/air traffic control: 15
lawyers/legal assistants/advocates: 14
doctors/nurses/healthcare: 14
pastors/priests/missionaries/social workers/psychologists/counselors: 13
civil servants: 12
artists/musicians/photographers: 12
manufacturing/machinists: 10
writers/journalists/reporters: 10
police/corrections/security/investigation: 8
students: 8
truckers/railroad workers: 8
statisticians/actuaries/data analysts/librarians: 8
architects/draftsmen/urban planners: 8
radio/television/telecom: 7
mechanics/heavy equipment operators: 6
oil workers: 6
real estate: 4
forestry: 3
purchasing/logistics/warehousing: 3
secretary/administrative assistant:3
quality assurance: 2
map maker/surveyor: 2
human resources: 2
other: 12
The problems besetting journalism today aren’t just the consequence of the liberal left’s lopsided representation within their ranks – it’s that there seems to be a fundamental inability to understand that on any given topic, someone is likely to get something wrong.
The internet didn’t just connect politically like-minded people whose views are under-served. It connected the highly trained and knowledgeable across geographic regions and fields of expertise, enabling them to compare notes and realize “it’s not just us”. That by and large, journalism is perhaps the only profession where the utterly unqualified are given the privilege of writing to a mass audience on topics that they really not ought to.
At one time, the error in basic chemistry or math might only be spotted by a few trained individuals in the field. A messed up report on the Canadian Wheat Board would raise the ire of ag producers but not much more. Misidentifying a weapons system would pass unnoticed by all but the military.
Today the chemists, ag producers and military talk to each other, and the conclusion they’re coming to is that an uncomfortably large percentage of journalists are not merely tainted by political assumptions – they’re lazy, stupid, or both.
The phenomenon is so widespread that a phrase has been coined to mock it – “Google is your friend.”
They’re asking themselves, “Why should we buy your papers? Why should I trust your network”? If you can’t get these basic facts right, if you can’t bother to balance your staff politically, of what possible value is your product to me? To anyone?
The crumbling authority of media is a problem that cannot be solved within the current top-down framework, because the framework itself is the problem. It’s the wrong model for the times.
The environment has been altered forever, and what the industry is faced with isn’t reorganization – it’s evolution. Change or die. Or change, and die anyway.
I have my money on both.
Update. I no sooner finished writing this when reader Michael S. sent along this case in point, courtesy the Associated Press.
