ABSTRACT
Gosh, with so much information around, organized in quite new ways and available so easily, surely we are all more knowledgeable than before? A connected world ought to be a more intelligent world. There are thrilling engines of enquiry developing, almost limitless information available, people to relate to, why do we need anything like the news? When worldwide publics can share events as they unfold, send immediate pictures from the hearts of disasters, can more or less communicate with anyone anywhere, who needs story finders, assessors and sellers any more? In the brave new world of boutique views, grazing media-snackers,
bespoke news consumption, when you take your information Indian, American or football style, with auto-didact news producers and content swappers, ‘citizen journalists’ sending images as events roll, happy connected chatters, posters and eager opionators all jostling for attention over the net, could it possibly be suggested that there is actually a new problem with ensuring ‘news’ diversity both nationally and internationally? Don’t we have more of the stuff than ever before? Villagers in Africa can text aid agencies to say that the aid has not arrived in their village, and that local officials are corrupt. Pictures from conflicts (well, some conflicts) ricochet about the net, as incendiary as the bullets they show. Anyone can post their view on anything. At least in some societies (like ours) the very detail of political decisions, the documents that drive and make political policy, can be made available for all the public to scrutinize within hours of decisions. The blogosphere bustles with attitude. Like termites, colonies of information workers create huge edifices of knowledge. Isn’t all of that teeming life diversity? But the criteria of judgement remain the same – even in the new world.
For the first condition of a decent society is some kind of common discussion, in public, of the realities of that society. It is a discovery that goes back to the sceptical empiricism of the enlightenment, but it is not ‘western’, or ‘élite’, it is just what makes the difference between civilized justice and many graduated degrees of oppression. It is a universal truth and it is what makes ‘the media’ potentially a public good. The media do this by bringing independent witness to scrutinize events. Many connecting and interactive
new conversational forms may do it. Although comedy, drama, the rules and mores of reality shows, radio chat programmes, programmes about animals, children’s programmes, interactive games – anything really – play their own creative and vastly important role in elaborating and challenging power – and do some of the vital work of amusing and informing audiences as well as the imperative of delivering their attention and interest – nevertheless they and the news all matter if the apprehending of reality is at the centre of the project. This is not to advocate ‘realism’ as a style – on the contrary; but satire and absurdity also have to speak to reality if they are to really hit home truths. Art adds its own creative interpretation to new understandings. But, if we are shown verities we recognize (and of course it is a messy, awkward business capturing the zeitgeist and yet moving it on), such realism engages us in a mobile dialogue about who we are, what is happening and what we wish to be. The democratization of the means to communicate globally is a machine
transforming knowledge and power. Yet reality is surprisingly hard to recognize. Moreover, it is perplexing enough to understand the conditions of communities we live in close proximity to; appreciating the more distant lives of others is still more challenging. In the past this was a matter of physical distance (which is still more important and complex than people understand –what do you know of the other lives lived in the road you live in?). Now it is as much – perhaps – about psychological and imaginative distance. But the distance is also a material one. It is quite simply the most exciting period of cultural change for genera-
tions. Thus, magnificent opportunities of the new communications order are transforming relationships between traditional power hoarders and some publics. Across all the so-called media industries, all of which are converging but which we recognize, from music, to publishing, to ‘broadcasting’ (the production of certain kinds of content delivered on any platform), to the news industry, the first great revolution for two hundred years, combining new technology, an upturning of creative relationships and unfolding new economic models, is remaking our imagination and understanding. Yet, precisely because of there is so much choice it is easy to ignore anything that we do not agree with or find uncomfortable. We can choose only to consult news and knowledge that fits our view of the world. We can find evidence that supports any prejudice or preference we fancy. We can build a comfortable silo for ourselves. We can also just ignore everything: who needs news about far-away places? The most recent research about the impact of the web on cultural goods (and perhaps, by extension, on cultural products – like news) is that the combination of web and media makes the largest, most popular, most discussed ‘celebrity’ goods hugely successful, but that smaller, less recognized goods and events disappear. You need a louder, bigger voice to attract attention in the noisy party of the digital world. It is harder to attract attention for things we need to know. It is harder for smaller, less fashionable voices to get heard.1
