Without it, we'd have to work much harder at triangulating the truth of the myriad blogs, local weeklies, etc?
Joanna
Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>Doug:
>
>really don't understand how anyone could know what's going on in the
>U.S. or the larger world without the likes of the NYT, WP, LAT, WSJ.
>Magazines, radio, TV, and the blogosphere would be lost wihtout 'em.
>
>
>[WS:] Do not they all rely on wire services, like Reuters or AFP? If the
>Reuters service is available on Yahoo for free, that would cut out other
>intermediaries (like NYT) out of the loop without reducing the availability
>of information.
>
>As to Chuck's point that people now look for alternative sources of
>information - in one aspect this is true, particularly in developing
>countries, where thanks to mobile phones and internet cafes people can
>access information totally bypassing local bosses and power brokers.
>
>But people are not computers, they are not fed information by wires. They
>are very selective, they acquire and process information through socially
>constructed cognitive frameworks that a priori determine what is relevant
>and believable and what is not. Customary and socially accepted sources of
>information carry significantly more weight than unknown an unfamiliar ones,
>regardless of the factual contents and truth value of the information
>itself. Local people tend to believe local shaman or guru than information
>obtained via internet form WHO or the Library of Congress.
>
>This brings us back to Doug's point about the role of the NYT, WP or WSJ.
>That role is not the provision of factual content, but the aura of
>legitimacy these print media bestow on that content. Information
>disseminated by these papers is more credible than that acquired from
>unknown sources on the internet.
>
>Destroying that aura of legitimacy is not necessarily a good thing. There
>are very high transaction costs in verifying information, and those costs
>grow exponentially with the volume of information. Most people simply have
>neither time, nor resources to verify every bit information they acquire.
>Their necessarily use "shortcuts" - socially accepted channels of
>communication that are a priori accepted as valid (unless proven otherwise),
>which includes not only the press, but other institutions, like schools,
>libraries, museums, etc.
>
>These "shortcuts" make mass literacy possible. Without them, most people's
>knowledge would be reduced to word salad - a hodgepodge of hearsay, urban
>legends, disconnected factoids, and haphazard perceptions. It would be a
>polarized world of few in the know (i.e. those with access to effective
>networks of information dissemination) and the masses of mushrooms (kept in
>the dark and fed manure.)
>
>I am not saying that the new brave world of the internet cannot replicate
>the legitimating function of the print media - but as of now it still has a
>long way to go.
>
>Wojtek
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>