Journalism Dead?

The economy of scale affecting current journalistic output reduces the forth estate to a commodity. The growth of networked computers reduced the cost of distributing content. Thus, information flowed horizontally, exposing both acute and noble lies of the state. This celebration of "new media" echoed throughout the 1990s. So what about media concentration? We could skip that question because content flowed in billions of cycles per second, reducing media conglomerates and information ministries to clumsy elephants waltzing in a world of their making that was unbeknownst to them being unmade. So some skipped the question while trends emerged showing concentration occurring, ironically, in the face of hierarchy-smashing technology.  

So much analysis of this "information age" enabling growth of vibrant democracy appears in retrospect as kitsch and catch-phrases. Concurrently, though, many other choruses of cassandras cautioned our embracing this global village.* Undaunted by their caution expressed roughly 20 years ago, hopeful voices speak of a more creative, freer, and democratic world created by standard protocols and servers. Today, for example, information is still characterized by its inherently decentralized nature:

"At the heart of the original web is technology to decentralise control and make access to information freely available to all," [1]. And, "It is the architecture that seems to imbue those that work with the web a culture of free expression, a belief in universal access and a tendency toward decentralising information. It is the early technology's innate ability to subvert that makes re-creation of the first website especially interesting." [2].

What kind of re-creation has occurred? How much decentralization of information has occurred? Examples exist that shows that publishers are using the internet as a journalistic platform to increase market share of their product, further de-professionalizing journalism. This affects the veracity of the published product:

Is this really journalism? 

The Arab Spring was promoted on social media, particularly in Egypt, erupting swiftly against police states. Social media's wide reach empowered Arab protestors resorting to civil disobedience. In addition to social media's revolutionary potency, the internet seemed to replace seamlessly the limited choices for content imposed on the public which was intrinsic to television, radio, and newspapers. This image of the internet's enabling an increasing age of democratization defies reality. The current body of facts show that the internet is enabling less a "subversion" of any systems and more an enclosure of the digital commons.

Alarmingly, the concentration of web viewing continues though:

"The top 10 Web sites  accounted for 31% of U.S. pageviews in 2001, 40% in 2006, and about 75% in 2010." [3]. Furthermore, "By 2012, according to the Web traffic measurer Experian Hitwise, 35 % of all Web visits now go to Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, and Facebook. (The same firms get two thirds of online ad revenue.)"[4].

This increasing concentration of both Web traffic and advertising revenue renders effective free speech more a commodity rather than the gift accessible to all within a limitless virtual reality. 

Ubiquitous data and information would both shrink the world by delivering its essence to our screens while simultaneously expanding it by broadening our communication ranges. News cycles would cease to depend on the advertisement-dependent cable TV channels. Corporate control of news and journalistic outlets has continued. This increased corporate encroachment on the internet has further reduced journalism to a mass production process.

Corporations outsource "journalism" to lower wage countries. An entity called Journatic demonstrates one example of this corporate outsourcing of journalistic production:

Journatic's local coverage is provided by low-paid writers and freelancers in the United States and, ironically enough, the Philippines, where Journatic hires writers 'able to commit to 250 pieces/week minimum' at 35 to 40 cents a piece. Journatic CEO Brian Timpone says that the compensation was 'more than most places in the Philippines.' They produce stories under bogus 'American-sounding bylines' that make it seem as if they are based in the local community running the stories. [5].  

This practice presupposes journalism is an unskilled job that is performed equally well regardless under what conditions it is performed. Thus,  corporations will only consider production costs when determining where to perform journalism. A person possessing a deep understanding of a specific cultural milieu ceases to be an important factor in producing informative journalism. Instead knowledge of a specific cultural milieu can be added with minimal effort at will by fiat. Journalism is a fungible product reduced to bytes. Journalism's future appears bleak, but professional reporters are unnecessary as shown in the social activism enabled by social media....right?  

Facebook was heralded as a medium enabling an abrupt spreading of the revolution that toppled a 30-year dictatorship in Egypt. Regardless whether this movement will create a viable democracy in Egypt, the toppling of Hosni Mubarak shows Facebook's potential as an enhancer of democracy and revolution. Or, has it?

More recently, Mark Zuckerberg's announced his creating a non-partisan lobbying group named FWD.US.  I infer from this non-partisan approach that their not focusing their lobbying efforts to reduce economic inequality and its resultant weakening of democratic institutions. This lobbying group maybe short-lived and non-influential, but it still deserves attention for now given Facebook's integral presence of social media. Facebook's recent actions portend a future of social media whose name "social media" will be devoid of its original connotation such as "Committee on Public Safety," "Ministry of Information," and various "People's Republics." 

During last April CREDO Action, a political advocacy group based in San Francisco, attempted to purchase ads to be shown on Facebook wherein they expressed criticism of Zuckerberg's FWD.US support of the Keystone XL pipeline. Facebook subsequently rejected this ad. [6]. Facebook's reasoning for their rejecting this ad sounds like semantics:

"According to CREDO Action, Facebook initially informed them they rejected the ad because it used Facebook trademarks — specifically, Zuckerberg’s image. Though the image used was fully licensed for creative commons use, a Facebook representative told ThinkProgress that any images of Zuckerberg are off-limits, as he is part of the Facebook brand. The rules governing Facebook brand usage specify 'trademarks, names, domain names, logos' but does not explicitly restrict images of Zuckerberg." [7].

I don't know whether CREDO offered to remove Zuckerberg's image in hopes of Facebook accepting its ad. But, our focusing on whether posting an "image" constitutes grounds for rejecting corresponding ads distracts us from debating important public policy issues such as the Keystone XL Pipeline. This event may only be an exception which is too insignificant to prevent social media from enabling greater democratization. How much evidence exists showing social media acts as a tool for enhancing democracy? What about the Arab Spring? History has not settled such questions. Meanwhile, concentration continues of webpage usage.   

Capitalism, contrary to many of its most sanguine defenders, holds no intrinsic tendency to democratize. Instead, popular masses within capitalist societies needed to organize to forge broader democratic institutions. This lesson should not be forgotten when being deluged with claims that democracy grows from wider internet usage. Yes the internet and social media create infinitely virtual megaphones. Yet emerging trends in the business models used by internet and social media reduce these megaphones to deafened purveyors of futility. 

[1]. Lopez, Alfredo. "Social Networking and the Death of the Internet." ZNet: A community of people committed to social change. May 13, 2013. http://www.zcommunications.org/social-networking-and-the-death-of-the-internet-by-alfredo-lopez

[2]. Ibid.

[3]. McChesney, Robert W. Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism Is Turning The Internet Against Democracy. The New Press. New York.  2013. Kindle version. loc 4168-4177. 

[4]. Ibid. 

[5]. Ibid. loc 4218.

[6]. Shen, Aviva. "Facebook Rejects Ad Highlighting Zuckerberg Group's Support For Keystone XL." Think Progress. April 30, 2013. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/04/30/1943091/facebook-rejects-ad-highlighting-zuckerberg-groups-support-for-keystone-xl/?mobile=nc

[7]. Ibid.

*A large volume exists of publications questioning the internet's true value measured by its enabling of democracy. Two good sources are Theodore Roszak's The Cult of Information (1986) and Cliff Stoll's Silicon Snake Oil (1996). The former was published prior to the internet reaching wide usage. But readers should take heed of Roszak's argument that increased computing power creates data and information glut at a level that serves as a "deliberate form of social control." This argument can be easily transferred to an Internet-centric world. Both sources are good not because their authors made accurate predictions; rather, both authors' books are representatives of the cottage industry of information age critics available during that time.