adiawaldburger
candiceyang627
daltonmain
jasondgabrick
jennpocock
joelbustamante1847
lyq890906
profibold
LaurenBurch
What the future portends is more and more information — Everests of it. There won’t be anything we won’t know. But there will be no one thinking about it. Think about that.
Neil Gabler
Updates from profibold Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
-
profibold
-
profibold
Society doesn’t need newspapers What we need…
“Society doesn’t need newspapers. What we need is journalism…When we shift our attention from ‘save newspapers’ to ‘save society,’ the imperative changes from ‘preserve the current institutions’ to ‘do whatever works.’ And what works today isn’t the same as what used to work.”
–CLAY SHIRKY-
jennpocock
Dear Sirs,
I, in all of my eco-nerd glory, would like to take hold of one of your similes and counter it with two of my own. If journalism is an ecosystem as Mr. Standage and Mr. Schudson says, then the Internet is akin to a destructive force—and the journalistic business model is the alternative fuel debate.
It’s interesting that so many of the authors are talking about the news “environment,” or “ecosystem,” as though it were something alive, moveable, dependent on nutrients and stressors for its growth. I think that it is an apt metaphor, but one that needs to be carried to the extreme. Just as an ecosystem hinges on the survival of microorganisms just as much as the largest mammal for its success, so is journalism dependent on an intricate web of business, producers, consumers, information and publication outlets. The big cannot long survive without the small, and vice-versa.
What every healthy ecosystem truly relies on, however, is the occasional destructive force.
Forest fires are essential to old-growth forest systems. They clear out dead or dying material that saps energy from the forest. They introduce new nutrients to the soil and prepare seeds for life—indeed, some seeds can only germinate at temperatures higher than three hundred degrees. As Mr. Rosen would say, “New life flows in through this opening.”
I think where Rosen and Carr differ in their opinions is not so much in how the Internet affects journalism as a practice, but in the economics driving the journalistic practice/profession. Mr. Rosen advocates for the possibilities of the practice, while Mr. Carr laments the downfall of the business model. While the two are interconnected, I think a more apt view is by looking at the business model as one might look at the energy industry: an outside activity that heavily affects the ecosystem.
For many years, we have relied on two major sources of energy: gas and coal. We’ve lately come to see that this is not viable. Dependency on oil means that we either have to look to outside countries for our fuel or delve deeper into more dangerous systems like ANWR or the Gulf of Mexico. Electricity seems like a viable option until one realizes that it’s fueled primarily with coal. There is plenty of coal for in the U.S., but obtaining and burning this fuel destroys land, communities and ecosystems.
The solution to this problem is diversification. Instead of using only oil, use petrol AND ethanol made from corn, switchgrass and wood AND biodiesel made from algae, and fry grease. Instead of electricity solely from coal, use coal and wind and solar and wave power. Each of these things makes smaller businesses more suited to the local environment in which they are found, stimulating growth while contributing the least destruction.
This type of change, however, is reliant on the adjustment of attitudes in the general public and the entire way our country has approached energy on local and federal levels. It’s not easy.
This is all to say that the Internet CAN be a good thing. It can make journalism stronger; it can bring out the best qualities of the existing processes and kill off those that are too slow in the journalistic ecosystem, as Mr. Rosen contends. Two things need to happen, however: 1) The passage of time, and 2) Business Model Diversification.
Journalism is not, especially in this day and age, a wait-and-see game. It’s very much rooted in the short-term, and that’s why everything seems so catastrophically wrong right now to Mr. Carr. Just as a forest floor looks scorched, dirty and lifeless after a wildfire, the media landscape looks pretty desolate right now. It takes time to rebuild, but then those seeds that are germinated by the heat begin to grow and life returns stronger than ever. Some of the flora or fauna may look different, but the balance reasserts itself.
Also, as suggested by Mr. Shirky, this chaos, this destruction, lends itself to diversification. Rather than sticking to one or two large, corrupt modes of energy to power the state of journalism, local places must adapt to different models that suit them best. Whether that be a capitalistic model, a philanthropic one, or a combination needs to be left up to the local environment. It takes a shift in attitude and is scary to use an economic generator that might seem less efficient, but it is the only way to survive in the long term.
-
Media & Society Seminar 
Reply