the xplosion of information on the internet means high signal-noise ratio. we need filtering mechanisms – friends, trusted sources, or our own motivation to check it out for ourselves. as my mother told me: ‘question everything’.
but even our friends and large media outlets have limited time and resources. things need to posted as soon as received, otherwise it’s not current – 48 hours after posting to youtube, you gotta get your vid 50,000 hits to get up there on the daily most-watched, otherwise you go down to the weekly most watched according to dan ackerman greenburg.
so how much can you believe what you read or hear?
what is the value of an ‘independent voice’ too, and how far does independence stretch nowadays? i mean, we have clay shirkey on TED extolling the virtues of groups and amateur input being co-ordinated via the internet and by virtue of self-organising systems, while we have others such as the horrible andrew keen (no i will not be drawn into linking anything to do with this charlatan on this site, but he is an eye opener. also, colbert’s interview with him on the colbert report was rather amusing) arguing that the amateurism promoted by the internet is ruining journalism and also, well, yes, honest profit-making – which, as we all know, makes the world go round. and will probably not cost us jobs, but will cost us a habitable earth itself into the bargain.
meantime, a small experiment seemed in order over at hungry beast:
…and bugger off murdochs of the world – leave our BBC’s and ABCs alone!…
uh, for those of you not comprehending this outburst, i recommend an update via the following video – made by the BBC, so it must not have an ‘independent’ view of this issue anyway, according to james murdoch. james equates state management of media news gathering and dissemination with lack of plurality, and unfair ‘land-grabbing’ of the media commons.
he claims that the only way for an independent media to survive is through profit… the BBC does not make a profit and thus it unfairly takes away the profit of commercial media enterprises by being too good… and free… duh. but of course, he neglects to mention that if anything is run by the state it is not free, it is a community resource. as people protesting againt universal health care in the USA must also believe….
if the BBC is so popular, then why shouldn’t it be used as a standard? i mean, does popularity necessarily mean lack of independence, or that news and other programming it delivers will be slanted or ‘biased’?
for those on the right, this seems to be the case, i.e. anything run by the state they believe must necessarily produce programming that is skewed in favour of what the government of the day does.
in fact, the problem with the ABC here in oz is that conservative governments so much fear the ‘independence’ of this state-run organisation, that they regularly reduce its funding, cut back positions and instal new heads of departments. it is only the more middle of the road governments (i cannot class the present labor govt as left by any stretch of the imagination) who do not appear to intervene… but of course, all these media wags at the ABC are lefties anyway, as the right will tell you.
oh, and teachers too for that matter – unless they are kept in order by being employed by… you guessed it! private schools run for the holy profit motive.