I have long been dissatisfied with reading/hearing second hand or third hand reports of events. Reading a book review or a movie review is not the same as seeing the movie or reading the book. The same is true of newsworthy events. One of the great wonders and joys of the Internet is the ability to get to the source itself. Of sure not everything but at least a lot of things.
It seems like everyone is talking about Barak Obama’s speech on race in America. Most of the reviews I came across where by fawning fans of the man so it was hard to take them too seriously. But this is the Internet age and so I was easily able to find and watch the speech for myself. And a wonderful speech it was. It almost makes me want to vote for the man.
And then there is reporting on other issues. The one review of yesterday’s testimony on the Washington DC handgun ban I was able to find was by someone who is clearly biased in favor of the ban. It was pretty disrespectful of almost all involved. Fortunately the transcript is available and I was able to spend some time reading it. I learned a good deal in that reading. And frankly the transcript reads a lot more reasonably than the review I read would have suggested. If one needed a reason to distrust the main stream media that would do it.
There is this theory that the Internet will result in a more informed populous. That people will be able to seek out and learn from unbiased reporting or at least be able to get unfiltered reading from both (or more than two) sides of the issues. Or maybe they will go to the source and avoid filters completely. It’s a wonderful theory and I believe it is possible. But I wonder if most people just look to the same old biased sources and get their information pre-digested and pre-filtered. It takes some work to find the sources. It takes a lot more time to read 80-100 pages of testimony than to read a one page summary. People have to really care to put in the time. Just because they can doesn’t mean people will.
We run our world (I’m thinking especially of voting) as though we have an informed population. But do we really? I wonder.
This is one of the things that has people so excited about 2008. It’s not like the Internet and blogs didn’t exist in 2004, but in this election, this “going direct” thing is taking a much bigger role.
Personally, I read Obama’s speech before he gave it. It was apparently released shortly before he delivered it, and I just happened across it as I prepared to go to class. So I printed it out and read over it in class. (Disclaimer: I do pay attention in class! There was a lot of downtime.)
The one review of yesterday’s testimony on the Washington DC handgun ban I was able to find was by someone who is clearly biased in favor of the ban
The thing I’m finding is that this access to “primary documents” (to quote high school history) is making me much more critical of the news. I tried reading about the DC gun case, but it was all over the place. I found it hard to read. (I’ve also become really impressed with Google News and their grouping of stories around a topic, making it easy to pick which source I get my news from.)
Actually, a good example! My friend Garrett in DC (a political blogger) was being interviewed about his book and the role of blogs and the like in this campaign (an oversimplification). It was leading up to the NH Primary, and one of the anchors made a comment about how quickly news of things like the Obama fans flocking to the stage, to the point that the fire marshal had to come in and clear us out. He pointed out that he’d read a first-hand account of it even before it hit the news.
People have to really care to put in the time. Just because they can doesn’t mean people will.
You’re spot-on here. People like you and I, who truly care and take the time to do this, have amazing tools like never before. But I think there’s a hidden cost, too: “MSM,” the mainstream media, has an obligation to at least pretend to be fair and balanced. The reporters have only a limited amount of room in how to twist things. But here in “the blogosphere” (disclaimer: I hate that word), no such expectation exists. I’m free to twist things the way I want, and omit the facts I don’t want to address.
We run our world (I’m thinking especially of voting) as though we have an informed population. But do we really?
As we get more and more options for news, I think it’s easy to become more selective. I consider Fox to be a bit right-wing. So I don’t watch them. I have other networks to choose from. But I can go one step further. I don’t have to stick to the MSM. If I were so inclined, I could just get my news from radically liberal sites who massively distort everything to suit their agenda. Rush Limbaugh exists solely because there are lots of conservatives who seek out a news source that tells them what they want to hear. (Note: I’m only singling him out because he’s the first that comes to mind, and I think he’s got more listeners than Al Franken or the like. Bias-detectors, don’t think I’m saying Limbaugh is the only one, or the only side. My point is that quite the opposite is true, in fact.)
It’s easier than ever to hear the “news” that we want to hear. Heck, look at sites like Digg: we can vote on what news is displayed. Stories that I don’t care about get a thumbs down, and stories that I like get a thumbs-up. (Now if only I could do this with MSM, to stop seeing stories about Britney Spears…)
Edit: Approving my own comment again. I hate this moderation thing…