Lots of Content Is Good for Democracy

One of the 6,387 themes in Dan Brown's new best-seller, The Lost Symbol is that God is not an external force or being, but is within each of us. The same might be said of content.

In my last blog, titled "Content Is Not King," I made the point that the explosive growth of the Internet has led to such a proliferation of content out in the long tail that it is now virtually infinite. To say that "content is king" in today's world is like saying "a grain of sand is precious."

One of the reasons for the proliferation of content is that anyone on the Internet can self-publish -- blogs, YouTube, Facebook updates and comments, Twitter, Flickr, personal Websites, and on and on. Everyone can create content and publish their views, and the surfeit of opinion creates debate and argument, which is good for the democratic process.

In 1990 historian Chris Lasch wrote an essay titled "The Lost Art of Political Argument" suggesting that the decline in participation in the political process in the U.S. correlated with the rise of professional journalism, and put forth a convincing argument as to why.

Our search for reliable information is itself guided by the questions that arise during arguments about a given course of action. It is only by subjecting our preferences and projects to the test of debate that we come to understand what we know and what we still need to learn. Until we have to defend our opinions in public, they remain opinions in [Walter] Lippmann's pejorative sense--half-formed convictions based on random impressions and unexamined assumptions. It is the act of articulating and defending our views that lifts them out of the category of "opinions," gives them shape and definition, and makes it possible for others to recognize them as a description of their own experience as well. In short, we come to know our own minds only by explaining ourselves to others.

Thus, by bloggers, journalists, and pundits creating content on the Web and elsewhere, they not only hone their own opinions, but they also add to the diversity of the debate and allow others to shape their views -- a process that leads to the wisdom of crowds.

The First Amendment wasn't written to protect facts; it was written to protect debate, and the plethora of content, argument, and debate is a good thing.

The outmoded idea that "content is king" was based primarily on its scarcity. But on the Internet, content, like all the sand on all the world's beaches, is not scarce. And this plethora of content may make gems harder it find, but the search and the ensuing debate generated by searches is good for our democracy.

Follow Charles Warner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CHWarner

Comments

[hgovernick]

"To say that "content is king" in today's world is like saying "a grain of sand is precious."

But a grain of sand IS precious.

[GeorgeBright]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with you. The saying might need to be modified to "GOOD content is king" to remain relevant in today's hyper-published world. Let's not conflate quantity with quality otherwise the hundreds of voices blathering "Death Panels" outweigh the few explaining "End of Life Counseling"

As long as the huge torrent of opinion isn't confused with actual facts, the political debate will be healthy. What we -really- need is a deep foundation of education in critical thinking so that we don't give equal value to the publishings of the Encyclopedia Britannica and of holocaust deniers.

[ProfessorDuh]

True. Opinions from people who don't know what they're talking about are something less than worthless. People screaming "keep your government hands off my Medicare" actually increase the net ignorance of the world.
Verified, researched, reported fact is as precious as rubies, and any hope of democracy will die a quick death without it.

[CharlesWarner - Huffpost Blogger]

You have a good point, but the problem with adding the modifier "good" to content, because everyone has a their own personal definition of good. Fans of pro-wrestling on TV (cable top-rated program most weeks) think it's "good." The concepts of "good" and "quality" are so highly subjective that it's impossible to reach consensus on what they mean.

[optimistATL]

I am so getting it. Content is only king when it's scarce.

When it's no longer rare, hard to find, precious--it absolutely has to be EVERYWHERE (so as to get found among all the other grains of sand)!! Tweak a few points here and there but definitely REPEAT AS NECESSARY.

You are walking your talk. And if you're reading this, just remember that what I am saying IS NOT IMPORTANT AT ALL!!

[CharlesWarner - Huffpost Blogger]

Well, I think what you say is important, because you took the time to read my content.

[optimistATL]

Okay now i get it!

I saw in your recent blog post that you were commenting on the media moguls/myths story--adding a few points there about brands and such.

And now you've expanded on those points here at huffpost.com--girl, you're everywhere with the content ain't king slogan!!

Lasch's best points were made waaaay before 1990. I call him by his last name because that's how I roll!

[optimistATL]

Chris and not Christopher Lasch? Informal first-name basis indicates....what, exactly?

Also, did you "borrow" this from the "media myths" addressed in this month's Atlantic? Your content is v. similar on this "content is no longer king because volume matters most" point, fyi.

As for looking up anything and getting an answer, kendraro--it may not be the full, correct, or most insightful answer--but you don't really need that in many cases, I suspect. Same issue of Atlantic has long story about unreported context of Sotomayor comments--and no, I don't work for the Atlantic!!

[kendraro]

Technology is moving faster than our ability to be able to usefully incorporate it into our lives. We are at a point where, technologically, we could do things that we aren't doing mostly because we lack creative innovative thought and the right mechanisms to advance that thought. But that is on a large scale, on a small scale, individuals are adopting tech solutions at a widely varying rate. It would be interesting to study what makes technology appealing to some, not to others. I think we're still so much at the early stages, I was just commenting on Google's 11th birthday - (I am 40) when we were kids the new high tech thing was a little pocket calculator and now we are at the point where pretty much anything you want to know, is at your fingertips. Most people, I don't think have really comprehended the amazingness, yes spellcheck, amazingness of being able to look up anything and get an answer.

[TAFL]

So you maintain that content is not king and support that by showing how content drives everything that you offer up as good? What an odd way to argue.