http://www.shift.com/print/web/441/1.html
THE FAILED PROMISE OF NEW JOURNALISM
Greg Hughes takes a harsh, unflinching look at why political journalism
on the web is falling short of its potential.
| Dec.13.2002 |
The world of modern journalism has become a much busier (and more
complicated) place in the last ten years.
For the average Westerner, the early 21st century is already turning
out to be an interesting, albeit dangerous, era of political and
economic change. And in this feeding frenzy of stories, some
journalists and activists have been turning to the web to write, record
and publish their views.
In effect, these reporters are trying to create a new form of
historical record that is D.I.Y., innovative and above all else,
independently-run.
But in spite of independent news groups like indymedia.org,
mediachannel.org, mediaaccess.org and fair.org, there hasn't exactly
been a renaissance in the number of media outlets that actually get
heard. Quite the opposite.
By the time you read this, a United Nations-endorsed, American-led
coalition of nations bent on eliminating Iraqi President Saddam Hussein
and his military apparatus will be making plans for a second visit to
the Persian Gulf in a decade.
Yet besides the prospect of yet another war in this extremely
unsettling political environment is the fact that, at least in the
United States, popular support for such an attack on Iraq has been
given the virtually unanimous support of the mainstream media; Fox
News' Bill O'Reilly, CNN's Pat "Soviet Canuckistan" Buchanan and a host
of other television and radio hosts and networks gave their tacit
approval to George W. Bush -- permission to "go forth young man" and
end what daddy couldn't ten years earlier.
The irony of Americans' continued deference to their media and
political elites came when President Bush addressed the U.N. last
month, stating that "Iraq's state-controlled media has reported
numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists,
leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons."
And it's not as though Canada hasn't been willing to follow suit.
Foreign Affairs minister Bill Graham was quoted saying, "I think what
will happen is Iraq will conform. I think its neighbours are now
putting pressure on it to say, 'Look, there is no alternative.' And
it's very much thanks to the role of the United States that we've got
the pressure there to make sure that this happens."
In a perfect world, potential conflicts like Gulf War II wouldn't even
be happening. But even in a less-than-perfect situation, opposition to
such an obvious, cloying attempt at masking U.S. oil interests in the
Middle East should have better popular support -- especially amongst
the netizen journalists.
It seems so self-evident: The internet generation has been raised on,
if you're politically-minded, a steady diet of Noam Chomsky conspiracy
theories, a five-party Canadian Parliament and youthful, invigorating
political zines like punditmag.com. A medium like the net, rightly or
wrongly, lets all voices (some abhorrent, some amusing) be heard.
Or so we figured.
Believing the internet to be a vehicle for real political change and
dissenting voices is a view we might have subscribed to in, say, 1995.
Nowadays, even the most compelling web site, the most well-organized
chatroom or the best email listserv can't hide the fact that the most
effective means for political dialogue is a face-to-face dynamic.
The internet was supposed to help facilitate new kinds of communication
and new kinds of thinking that went beyond the video screen or audio
connection. What was hoped to link people, places and events beyond
traditional media has turned into, well, every other mass medium. The
lines have been drawn between corporate media juggernauts and bathtub
gin operations -- there is no middle ground anymore.
So why hasn't the web given us a news source that promises ideas in a
forum of immediacy and relevancy beyond corporate media?
Legitimate news groups like the CBC, CTV and CityTV are so strong in
propagating their presence online because they are trusted and have the
institutional memory to back up claims of their legitimacy. For one,
the web remains in its infancy in terms of reporting legitimate news.
While more opinions and views are present online, the culture of Matt
Drudge -- news based on rumours, not facts -- remains dominant. While
the public's hunger for information has increased since the web's
breakthrough into popular consciousness, our demand for trustworthy
sources has as well.
Yet web-based media has made the mistake of trying not only to emulate
television, radio and print media all at once, but effectively
reinventing the wheel several times over: Even sites like Plastic or
Slashdot, some of the most "credible web media," remain locked into
niche reporting that relies mostly on second-hand information. And yes,
Slashdot users are basically a large community of reporters, as are
many web media sites. Even Salon, a zine conceived during the web's
initial foray into public life in 1995, has become a fluffier, less
relevant source.
Does this mean that the net has matured to the point that, while any
John or Jane Q. Public can set up a website on al Qaeda and voice their
views, they won't even be heard in the sea of CNNs and News Corps? Can
independent voices and FTAA be taken seriously online if they don't
have the historical legacy to support themselves?
Well, not exactly.
Truly successful web-based journalism depends on going back to the
basics of reportage; writing narratives and historical legacies that
reflect the web's non-linear perspectives. What this really means is
that the adage "everything old is new again" is becoming more important
in a medium that thrives on unique approaches to storytelling.
In many ways, some of the more successful forms of authorship online
have been basically old forms of storytelling; weblogs are the
electronic equivalent of written correspondence, serialized news
stories are reported in a format similar to old newspaper serials, and
websites such as bitbooks.com are writing and adapting works of fiction
exclusively to reflect electronic realities.
While streamed video, Flash animation and audio feeds are only just
beginning to make their mark on the web, this means the web must take a
journalistic approach that harkens back to an era that did not have
video or audio capabilities.
In effect, this means going back to the days of George Orwell, Charles
Krauthammer and Hunter S. Thompson, in which stories were written with
an almost literary feel that drew the reader in.
While political chatrooms, Ontario Premier Ernie Eves or emaillist
servs can talk on end about the virtues of Maoist China, the New
Democrats' hopes for the future or even Friedrich Hayek's
libertarianism, the net will truly realize its potential for
high-quality journalism when it has the power of original narratives
behind it.
-----------------
Greg Hughes is a freelance writer from Markham, Ontario. He's a huge
political nerd.
-----------
FoIB mailing list -- Bits, Analysis, Digital Group Therapy
http://www.ianbell.com/foib.html
