The dissemination of news has always been intertwined with sensationalism and manipulation. There have been sex scandals and inflammatory whodunits since the dawn of the modern newspaper in 16th century Europe and even in the news-like outlets of ancient Rome. Similarly, everyone from kings to corporations to Glenn Beck has used the news to manipulate the public into thinking one way or another.
In 2010, with everyone prophesying the death of newspapers, the interesting question is how changing the medium changes the message, and also how it does not.
We’ve gradually come to see each change in technology—from print to screen to tweet—as “revolutionizing” the delivery of the message. While the impact can often be exaggerated, we can see how this new access to media can deliver on that promise. In fact, it already has.
Samuel Morse was basically the 19th century prototype of a Steve Jobs revolutionary. Newspaper outlets doubled within 20 years of the introduction of his telegraph. New ones were popping up faster than iPhone apps are today. And, of course, a lot of people made a lot of money (as with any good revolution).
The wire sparked the creation of the Associated Press and other centralized information agencies. For the first time journalism required expertise because places like the AP had to be accountable to multiple news sources. The average reporter could bring more food home to the table if he could report “the facts” rather than tell an elaborate story or go to battle for one side. There was a utility to truth-telling in the media that had never before existed. Since then, “the facts” have come to inform and influence the decisions of everyone from the politician to the labour leader to the housewife.
The philosopher Jurgen Habermas claims that we need an authentic press like we need electricity or gas. The more effectively it is distributed, the better society functions.
The first thing you see when you pick up a newspaper today is a photograph—the reason being the old truism that a picture is worth a thousand words. Those thousand words aren’t written by the journalist but by the reader, especially if he or she hasn’t even taken the time to read the accompanying article.
Additionally, Internet-exclusive news sources like the Drudge Report and the Huffington Post are not limited to geographical means of dissemination, but has the limitless power to dictate its own context. The reader can say: “I read this because I choose to—not because it’s simply available where I live. I’m in charge of this content.”
With hyperactive consumption of media, sensationalism and manipulation have certainly not disappeared. Only now they are caused by the readers themselves.
Alex Hamilton and Daniel Sorger are the Tribune’s newest bi-weeky columnists. Write them at [email protected].
