As Truth Falls, The Internet Rises

Lots of bloggers are buzzing about the foibles and fallacies of the CNN/YouTube Republican debate. "It's a marketing ploy." "A populist sham." "A Liberal distortion of Republican politics." "A degradation of meaningful debate." They may be right, but they're all missing a profound insight about media and politics that this alliance represents. The Internet is now the most trusted medium for news.

How can I claim this? And how could it be true? Isn't the Internet the place where nothing can be trusted, where a corporate executive can creatively edit his own bio on Wikipedia, where journalist-wannabes circulate rumor as truth, where videos of stupid dog tricks live side-by-side with gripping cell-phone footage of hurricanes, kidnappings, and political bloopers?

I can say this because I've recently heard people talking about the Internet differently than they were just a few years ago. Let me back up a bit. I've been in the world of media and marketing for 25 years. In that time, I've had cause to interview a lot of people on how they feel about news, media, and their lives. Recent focus groups, as conducted by the Cognitive Anthropologist Dr. Robert Deutsch, seem to suggest that although Americans continue to doubt the veracity and intentions of traditional news media, they trust the Internet as a tool to help them make sense of the news. I've included a wide variety of quotes from average news consumers to illustrate this story.

To understand current beliefs, one has to look at the national news media over the last few decades, how it has changed, and most importantly, how it lost its grip on truth. There has been a long, steady slide of the media's perceived authority since 1970, when Cronkite, Brinkley, and Howard K. Smith ruled the airwaves. Part of the slide is numbers driven. When there were only three national sources of news -- all of which were covering the same stories with a relatively neutral bias -- then it was natural to trust what was being reported as true. This was the period of the Omniscient Truth-teller, when broadcast television was dominant and exclusive. This authority cracked with the advent of cable.

In 1980, CNN burst on the scene with 24/7 footage of events covered in a way never before seen. News became immediate and more experiential. People could watch the first Persian Gulf War, live with the reporter, from inside Baghdad. It was the right format for the right time. With globalization directly affecting the lives of Americans -- providing new growth for American companies while eliminating middle-class jobs -- people needed to see what was going on in the world for themselves, they needed to see what was coming at them. It was the period of Empirical Evidence. This is when the locus of truth began to shift. Truth was no longer embodied in the storyteller or his interpretation, it was in the media's "boots on the ground," its capability to enable viewers to witness foreign people, places, and events.

Then came Fox News, "Fair and Balanced." The Fox News franchise was built on the proposition that it was the only truth-teller. And, it consistently inoculated every story with its point of view. Regardless of the veracity of its reporting, its style of journalism caught on. It was a voice for a new political age, a reassertion of American rightness and power, the age of Subjective Certainty. This is when national news sources became more and more overtly biased to the point where people began tuning them out as nothing more than "talking heads." The myth of objectivity was shattered, and with it, the mantle of trustworthiness. As one television viewer said "Now you've got MSNBC, NBC, CNN, CNBC, and they're all on 24/7...everyone just wants to blast you with opinions."

Simultaneously arising in this period was the increasing blatancy of spin -- Bill Clinton's questioning what "the definition of 'is' is" and the Karl Rove factor, in which all aspects of public policy were driven by politics and propaganda. Lastly, with the "embedding" of journalists in Desert Storm and all the ramifications that followed, people began to perceive the government and the media as monolithic destructive forces. Consider these quotes from news consumers, "The government has changed. It's against the people. It lies to the people. You can't trust it anymore." "The media is a big machine. It's like the wizard behind the curtain. "Catastrophe is what these people [the media] live for." "The media feeds on destruction." One can almost hear public opinion hitting rock bottom.

Enter stage left, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. These Siamese twins of "Nattering Nabob" Journalism are the Phoenix rising from the ashes of political and media credibility. We need no further evidence of this than Steven Colbert's contribution of the word "truthiness" to the American lexicon (named Word of the Year for 2005 by the American Dialect Society and for 2006 by Merriam-Webster according to Wikipedia). However, if you prefer numbers to words, just take a look at the "believability" and "favorability" ratings for news media in the Pew Research Center's report on "Press Values and Performance: 1985-2007." The ratings for all traditional news media have continued to drop steadily since 1985.

Distrust of the media shouldn't be confused with dislike of the media. Everyone has a favorite news source. And everyone tends to trust certain sources more than others. However, people no longer believe that the truth can be found in the media. As a loyal newspaper reader complained, "The media has an obligation to give you accurate information, tell you the whole story, and report the truth, but it doesn't." To many news-consumers, truth is illusive, hidden, un-findable, unknowable, and unspeakable. Listen to the deep skepticism in these quotes: "Who knows who's telling the truth." "There are a lot of questions. Nobody is saying anything." Lastly, "I want to know what nobody can tell me."

So, if people believe the truth is beyond their reach, how do they function, how do they live relatively normal lives? In general, they consume as much news as they can manage, form a loose understanding, and then go with their gut. As one person said "There's so much information. You can read five different papers and get five different opinions on one topic. So who's right? You're going to say 'Well, I'm leaning towards this,' and make some unconscious decision." Since people can't witness the news first-hand, and since all public officials spin the facts, and since all media distorts and exaggerates, going with their gut is the only option people have left. It is -- in fact -- the most highly adaptive approach to living in the "hall of mirrors" that mediated life has become. As one man stated "It's up to the person to make it all make sense." As another wistfully said "I have to do it for myself. I'm alone."

With the news media having lost its authority, and with truth as unknowable, how does the Internet fare in public opinion? Surprisingly, it appears that the Internet is becoming the most trusted medium for truth. In a world where you have to consult and cross-reference multiple sources to decide what's true about anything (whether it be a news event, a mutual fund, or a movie), the Internet is the best -- and only -- medium that allows one to do this. Thus, it is the Internet's utility as a research tool that makes people feel that it is working for them and on their behalf. Here are a series of quotes that illustrate the Internet's perceived value as the new uber-source for news: "I go to specific news sources for each topic. It's online. It only takes two seconds." "With online, you can go deeper, get other points of view, get more specific information, be more up to date...in real time." The superiority of the Internet is powerfully stated by this woman, "The Internet rises above everything else because it delivers everything."

Also, the Internet -- and YouTube in particular -- is a place where people can see and hear themselves in more natural ways. People gravitate to this because they feel the traditional media are distorting their lives: "We don't get heard in this country....What we hear is what the newspapers tell us, what the television tells us, what the radio tells us. That's all we hear." User-generated content provides the perceived credibility that people seek. It suggests authenticity without agenda. It bypasses the institutional bias of politicians and reporters and returns people to what they all feel deep down, as this news consumer says: "We're the normal ones." In other words, they can only trust themselves and people like them, not news professionals. That's why the CNN/YouTube alliance happened and that's what makes it so significant to media and politics today.
There is a cliché in the Internet business now, "the consumer is in control." In terms of media and advertising consumption, it's largely true. But, in existential terms, it's never been less true. It is a difficult and disquieting task to have to navigate a world where truth is unknowable. Perhaps, this is why religious fundamentalism has made a comeback. However, in lieu of the Almighty, the rest of us have just the Internet to rely on. And, we do.

Comments

[TommyMcCarthy]

While anything but newly minted myself...I've only been using the web for three years or so. I remember listening to a couple of friends being really enthused about this "inter-net" thing as far back as the mid-late '90s. All I really knew was that It required you to hook your computer somehow to others (I viewed the computer we owned as a high-tech typewriter)
I've always been interested in politics and culture and I recall one of them trying to explain it to me but I couldn't get my pea brain around it....."..so it's like T.V., right?..... like a giant C-Span with an encyclopedia strapped on to it...?"

Having decried the sheep-like apathy of the American electorate for so many years, I can see now that even a relatively bright person limited to ONLY the MSM could easily be spun into a truly cartoon view of current affairs..and be led by the nose by any "decider" currently in fashion.

Commentor "stoyver" makes a great point in this regard:...they can't fool us if we can see behind the curtain. Thank God for the Blogs (Huffpo being my favorite) Where thwe first ammendmant REALLY lives!...........tm

[glitzqueen]

Without the Internet -- and we'd better fight tooth and nail to keep it unrestricted -- we'd be isolated and wholly in thrall to Big World World. Having no news but what's branded and spun would bring the certain death of democracy, and our corporate masters want it exactly that way.

[badmormon]

Not all Americans know that the media is being used to manipulate thought. The right wing conservative christians are malleable, docile and obedient to their chosen dictators.
Only a small number of Americans know that the media is under special interest control. Fortunately the number is growing.

[xenubarb]

Computers are weapons of mass instruction.

But users beware. You have to know the difference between hyperbole, anecdotal "evidence," and documented, researchable fact.

User results may vary depending on this.

[mouselion]

Where network news was a monolith revered as truth, the internet is a wild mountain stream.

Where Ted Koppel, et al, were your tour guides on a yacht, the internet is first hand. You're now a kayaker having to interpret and negotiate the currents. You now must learn how to read the river ahead of you.

General acceptance of what's presented to you no longer counts. In fact, it can get you into trouble, so you learn to be your own reporter, digging for facts and corroboration to statements.

Let's hope we can hang on to it, as it is. We need it this way. The internet is the best populist tool to come along since the constitution, the Bill of Rights and the civil rights movement.

Communications technology is not the be-all end-all for democracy. But, it's been a damn good tool. Through every incarnation starting with the printing press, making the written word available to the masses, through to now. Basic freedoms, human rights and egalitarianism seemed to be well-served.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

"There has been a long, steady slide of the media's perceived authority since 1970, when Cronkite, Brinkley, and Howard K. Smith ruled the airwaves."

Perhaps. But it may be that the public, or a significant portion of the public, began to preceive that the "news" was controlled at an earlier time.

For those who can remember it, the trust began to falter on a specific date: November 22, 1963. For some people, it was inconceivable that a crime could be committed and that the police and all the authorities (including the three networks) could immediately conclude that one person, and one person only, commited the crime.

There were plenty of eye witnesses who saw the results but not a single credible eye witness who could be placed on camera to say that he or she saw and could identify a particular perpetrator. Not one. And, incidentally, the three networks agreed that all of the eye witnesses who claimed to have been in the vicinity of a shooter on the grassy knoll were wrong.

It was inconceivable to some people that the police simply need to pick up a particular individual, Lee Harvey Oswald, and that no futher investigation was needed. This conclusion given by the networks was given at the time of the shooting and was long before the Warren Commission Report was written.

Before November 22, 1963, people generally believed that the news organizations competed with one another and could be trusted. They had never heard of Operation Mockingbird.

After November 22, 1963, some people became more cynical about the news and information released by governmental officials. Others continued to be more trusting and even disregarded the fact that all three new outlets would tend to show the same news stories in the same sequence without wondering whether such news was scripted.

Check out Operation Mockingbird to see what was really going on in the news even at that earlier time.

[3fingerbrown]

The internet makes it easier for us to block out anyone who doesn't agree with us.
It makes it easier for us to reinforce our prejudices and superstitions.
It makes it easier for us to insulate ourselves in a custom-built media cocoon, shutting out all dissent and uncomfortable facts.
It makes it easier to be hidebound, intolerant, and rude.
It makes fools of us all.

[lucnyc]

When people are afraid they lose their sense of reason. They get dumbed down, they become part of a crowd instead of the individuals that they are. This is what happened after 9/11. Most people bought what they where being fed by the Bush Abministration and the news media hook, line, and sinker. Because, they were afraid. The repubilcans took this and ran with it. Ruppert Murdoch (republican)owns Faux News, the NY Post and many other right leaning media where he gets to spew these right wing ideologies. To the average american it's almost like a form of brain washing.

[VictorAndTim]

I don't want my news "Fair and Balanced". I want FACTS, not opinion. I'm tired of every story having to have both sides spin it for me one way and then another.

Do we use waterboarding? Yes or No. Do not debate with me wheather or not it's torcher. Of course it is. And it's shameful.

Did this administration lie to the American people to get us into Iraq? Yes. I don't need to hear both side's spin on it. They lied. Right to our faces.

As Joe Friday used to say, "Just the facts maam."

[LazyLearner]

On the Internet, our brains switch from passive to active mode.

Gathering one information is really faster than on the traditional media, videos are short, we usually read one-topic-­blogs-entr­ies in diagonal and focus only when something wake our interst.
Contradiction occurs much often, we can stop on every special word or sentence and discuss about it.
At least one time in the day we read something that is the opposite of what we read, thought or heard before, we automatically rethink to sort out our knowledge and ideas for that new information match our internal logic. We are sharpening our critisim and it is entertaining
Internet has also a huge impact on timeline. Internet can turn a forgotten information into a buzz (Dick Cheney: Iraq Would Be a "Quagmire", 1993 on Youtube)

When you read an article or watch a TV program, you end alone in your sofa with one or two mixed feelings and doubt. Unless you are shocked or captivated, you will not dig anymore (always too lazy to stand up, buy a book or even reach it in the library). And that's it for the traditionnal media

Sorry to bring Ron Paul to the debate, but the "Who is Ron Paul" it's all about that applied to politics. When average open-minded people match what is said on the news and what they can discover on internet they feel:

- That other competitors are like the actors in advertisments
- The traditional media is out of pace by revealing issues long after they are debated on the Internet
- Confident about they thought how bad politics is
- Challenged, entertained and exited (Sherlock Holmes symptoms)
- Smarter

The other important factor is that it seems quite difficult to control information on the Internet. Even with an elaborated construction, you will always have some power Internet user who will dig deep: registrar inforamtion, wikipedia software that tracks who change what...

The strengh of the Internet IS that nothing is supposed to be reliable.

[bethinCary]

Most anyone who has observed the Bush WH of the past 7 years, knows the secrecy and lies the WH has engaged in. So to hear people come on, who don't even work in govt.(or WH).So instead of Americans intelligence being insulted once, you get a constant stream daily of people who claim to speak for them(govt.)-when the public knows that they themselves know just as much as these talking heads.
For that Goebbels strategy of telling a lie often enough-it'll be believed-well, that's just shot all to hell. Even by the 1% doctrine-you have to have at least 1% be believable. When that 1 is gone though-the public knows there is no reality by that "regurgitating" msm.
It's no surprise at all, that the internet traffic is up as a result..

[AMolinaro]

A major factor in the decline of trustworthiness in the MSM is the elimination of the distinction between news stories and op-ed pieces. The editorializers are presenting their incredibly narrow and biased views of news stories as fact. Add in the unwillingness of most journalists to make their interview subjects and you get nonsense like Ms. Couric's piece on presidential candidates in which Guiliani and Romney both claimed Iran was hell bent on obtaining nuclear weapons. Not once did she bring up the fact that this was not true, because if she did she might lose her access to the high-profile figures that drive her ratings. The most troubling factor in this is the MSMs answer to their credibility issues, which is always presenting every story as though it has two sides. They give equal time to respected experts and complete whackos in order to seem as though they aren't overly favoring said experts.

I've given up on factual coverage of real issues ever since I saw a piece on CNN about how there was no longer a place for white men in the Democratic party. This shameless right-wing propaganda presented as news by the supposedly uber-liberal CNN was the final insult.

[Stoyver]

I get most if not all news via internet. I listen to NPR and occasionally NBC or CBS to corroborate stories. I tolerate Fox News only when I need to get a sense of the Neoconservative viewpoint. I read the local "paper" which even early in the morning seems old news. Bias is obvious when you have the facts, sometimes days in advance, and then watch network/cable treatment of the same story.

Corporate ownership forces network/cable/print media to modify or omit certain aspects of stories that may endanger their revenue stream, public good be damned. Politics definitely plays a role in network and cable decisions regarding story coverage. The corporate media's understandable fear of taxes and regulation condemn the public to endless anti-government propaganda. The net effect of that propaganda is that ill-informed citizens vote against their own interests. It is sad that most don't see through the ruse.

Ultimately, the News Media must be either re-regulated or taken away from corporations who's interests are not compatible with the public good. A truly informed citizenry is a minimum requirement for healthy democracy. Healthy democracy, while fleeting, is the best form of policy development yet devised.

G. W. Bush has stated a preference for dictatorship so long as he is the dictator. Some still think he was joking.

[realitytrumpsbull]

The Internets and The Google are pretty cool,
but as far as information goes, not even the
dubdubdub is a guarantee of anything, matter
of fact now the professional propagandists
can have a field day. Problem: the targeted
audience can now bullshit back, so if your
informational kung fu is greater than that
of the people trying to tell you 'the official
story', in open forum they can bleed 'cool
points' like mad, then they have to admit
that yes, the Guy With A Lot Of Money told em what to say. Eventually, all events all
over the world will become instantly available
all over the rest of the world. At this
point, the earth will reverse its' orbit,
and the rate of planetary rotation will
increase to 33 1/3RPM...hang on! LOL

[gimpelthefool]

Print and airwave media have one step up on the internet when it comes to responsible reporting. Whether or not the editors and reporters in these media are honest and reliable, at least they exist for whatever they do to weed out the spurious.
Blogs and websites have very few overseers, and truth guardians do not exist at all for mass email forwards which I, and, I am sure, everyone else with an email account receive almost daily.
The latest of these that I've received was a ridiculous diatribe about an impending "North American Union" slated to combine Canada, Mexico and the USA into one country using a single currency called the Amero. Ridiculous claptrap on the face it, but it took an ominous turn when it started claiming this would be the first step toward one world government and enslavement to the Rockefellers. Substituting the word "Jews" for "Rockefellers", you get a duplicate of the anti-semitic diatribes that have been circulating since the publication of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion".
Judging from the headers on this forward, this had been forwarded at least five times in the past week and read by hundreds in that time span. Certainly, a portion of those readers believed what they had read or they wouldn't have passed it on.
The internet as an unregulated, uncensored form of data dissemination is a lot scarier than any Rupert Murdoch figure.

M.H. ISRAEL
CHECK OUT GIMPEL'S GALLERIES
http://hometown.aol.com/gimpelthefool/myhomepage/brag.html