This election
season differs
dramatically
from any that
came before it.
The stakes are
higher, the
debate is more
vibrant, but
most
importantly, the
old mainstream
media are no
longer in
control. In
early 2005, the
beginnings of
the Internet
media revolution
were already
showing, as
fact-finding by
hundreds of
bloggers exposed
a falsified CBS
story about
President Bush’s
military record
and brought down
the seemingly
impregnable
career of Dan
Rather. In 2006,
in another
triumph for
media
transparency,
bloggers
discovered
Reuters’
deliberate
doctoring of
photographs from
Beirut during
the
Israeli-Lebanese
conflict. Today,
the power of the
Internet media
is
astronomically
higher than it
was even during
those two
milestone
incidents.
It is indeed
astounding to
witness
Presidential
debates
co-hosted by
YouTube and some
candidates
raising millions
of dollars
online in a
single day,
without the
involvement of
their official
campaigns. A
sizable
contingent of
small,
independent
reporters now
visits the sites
of the debates
and interviews
the candidates
as well as the
people on the
streets.
Meanwhile, the
opportunities
for writing and
publishing
online continue
to grow at an
accelerated
rate. With
hundreds of
services, it
costs no money
to publish
articles or
initiate a blog
or online
magazine of
one’s own.
Indeed, over the
past two years,
opportunities to
make
money by writing
online have
skyrocketed. The
old media now
compete with
thousands of
informed,
educated, and
intelligent
independent
writers and
broadcasters.
What are the
implications of
the growing
decentralization
of the media,
both on the
political
landscape and on
the skills
necessary for
the citizen who
wishes to
effectively
participate in
civic life?
First, it is
becoming much
more difficult
for any public
figure to tell a
lie and get away
with it.
Thousands of
individuals are
ready to check
and double-check
the facts and
statements
presented by any
politician or
journalist – and
to publish the
truth online for
all to see. In
this election
there has
already been a
substantial
focus on the
glaring
dissonance
between the
principles some
candidates
espouse and
their record of
consistently
violating these
principles.
Today, ordinary
citizens can
readily find out
all the
votes of a
particular
candidate when
he was a Senator
or
Representative,
or the policies
he enacted when
he was Governor.
American voters
generally do not
take kindly to
hypocrisy and
flip-flopping,
and this time
they will insist
that each party
nominate
candidates with
a record of
actually
practicing what
they preach.
Furthermore, the
public has
ceased to have
an expectation
of the old
mainstream media
as sources of
received wisdom.
Gone are the
days when a
column by Walter
Lippmann could
sway millions of
Americans to
vote for
Eisenhower
instead of
Stevenson. The
news anchors and
TV pundits today
are just a few
voices among a
vast multitude,
and their
pronouncements
are widely
scrutinized. No
longer can the
decisions of a
handful of
journalists
determine the
content of “the
news” or of what
the public knows
and believes
about the
current
political
situation. The
old mainstream
media have been
slow to adjust
to the
transition and
still believe
that they can
cherry-pick
“frontrunners”
in this
election. Their
plummeting
ratings and
audiences
testify to the
contrary. Nor
are they doing
well
financially. The
stock price of
the New York
Times, for
instance, was
halved
during 2007
alone. In the
meantime, the
trends in the
opinion polls
and campaign
contributions
show that
Americans
generally tend
to support the
candidates whose
principles they
agree with – not
the candidates
whom mainstream
media pundits
consider capable
of winning.
The
decentralization
of the media has
revolutionized
the political
arena by
bringing vastly
increased
competition
to the market of
ideas. Access to
large amounts of
capital is no
longer necessary
to get an
audience, so the
barriers to
entry have been
lowered
dramatically. On
the other hand,
with thousands
of competitors,
no one of them
is indispensable
from the
consumers’ point
of view. Thus,
the new market
of ideas places
a tremendous
premium on
truthfulness
and
persuasiveness
as
requirements for
cultivating an
audience. If one
online
commentator
argues poorly or
lies, there will
be fifty others
that argue
better and
present more
reliable
information.
In this rapidly
dawning new era,
consumers of
information need
to understand
that
automatic
reliability
no longer
exists. One can
no longer trust
the
pronouncements
of any one
particular
public figure or
private
individual –
even one who has
rightly earned a
reputation for
honesty and
accuracy. All
people are
fallible, and
any given online
commentator may
be a wonderful
source on some
issues and a
poor source on
others. The best
approach to
becoming
well-informed by
consulting
decentralized
media is to
double-check
one’s
information, use
multiple
sources, and
think for
oneself. The
individual
reader and
viewer is not
inferior to
those who
produce the
information he
reads and views;
he can no longer
hold the blind
and unwarranted
conviction that
the judgments of
the media
“elites,”
“experts,” and
“authorities”
are superior to
his own.
Instead, he can
critically
examine any
pronouncements
he cares to
explore and then
make up his own
mind – and
perhaps share
his thoughts
with the rest of
us.
This election
will turn out
differently from
the others. The
new
decentralized
media, having
already emerged,
are now
unstoppable. The
old mainstream
media will
either finally
get a reality
check and adjust
to the new state
of affairs, or –
more likely –
will rapidly
collapse into
oblivion without
ever truly
recognizing why.
A much more
dynamic,
independently
minded,
well-informed,
and politically
active body of
ordinary
citizens will
determine the
outcome of this
election – and
you are welcome
to be one of
them.
The
New Era of Decentralized Media