I agree with Starr's description of the metropolitan daily as a public good. We've discussed several times the importance of information for citizen competence. For information to abound, the public needs a source of in-depth, fact-checked reporting on many topics. This is the unique contribution of newspapers. In the Internet era, many news sources may proliferate, but so does bias and misinformation. Blogs and rumors online often detract from the public discourse rather than adding to it.
As far as keeping watch over politicians, however, I think the Internet may do a better job than newspapers. It is good at allowing information from many sources to enter the public sphere, and this has often created more checks on politics rather than less. Professional journalism is still a loss, but leaks from statehouses have increased.
While you raise a good point about the proliferation of information in the new digital age, I disagree with the sentiment that the Internet does a better job than newspapers with respect to keeping politicians in check. The internet may contain more information that any other single resource on the planet, but the majority of that information comes from individuals with relatively no objective opinion. Therefore, the information they are presenting to us through blogs, etc. is extremely biased and, more importantly, factually incorrect. They are merely citizens expressing their political beliefs in a public forum - but we should not take their opinions as fact. This is exactly why the quality of newspaper reporting is declining, because we can no longer trust writers and reporters to give us just facts. They infuse their opinions into their writing in such a subtle way that it is difficult for us to pick out what is objectively true.
ReplyDeleteAs for public officials, most internet sources can only speculate as to what is true. A lot of the material found online comes from a seed of truth, that then spirals into a larger-than-life rumor. If we think about it in terms of gossip magazines, that sort of information is extremely abundant on the internet but very rarely is it accurate. People like to express their opinions, but there needs to be a line between opinion and fact so that the average American does not get bogged down by rumors and whatnot. Even Wikipedia is factually inaccurate, as internet users provide the information that is presented on the website. In so far as we do not have a legitimate fact-checker for internet sources, the web cannot be as effective as newspapers due to the exclusivity of paid journalism.
I agree with Lesa that there is an increased problem of "misinformation" on the internet. However, that does mean we cannot utilize newspapers at all online. After all, most newspapers are online anyway. Also,in class we talked about how news online my be less convenient, and that people wont be able to view news on their lunch breaks, etc. However, in today's changing world, with computers, cell phones, ipads, etc, news is available all day, every day. Yes, it is true that not everyone has access to these technologies. But that doesn't mean that they never will. Only a hundred years ago or so, only elites had access to books. Today, they are relatively cheap and easy access.
ReplyDeleteI also do not agree with the statements about wikipedia. How many people go around fact-checking newspapers? Not many. They have a few paid people to do that. Other than that, we trust the information we get to be factual. How many people fact check wikipedia? Tons! Instead of having only a few "gatekeepers", we have tons and tons of gatekeepers. This more more democratic in every way, shape, and form. Also, how many newspaper articles do you know that have disclaimers at the top about bias or missing sources? None. But Wikipedia does do this. I would much rather read a source fact checked by millions than one fact checked by 3.