Earlier this summer, I had the privilege of attending a private discussion with Ambassador Patrick N. Theros, a career American diplomat serving as President of the US-Qatar business council. We discussed al-Jazeera and the al-Jazeera effect at length, and (according to Theros), the network was created by the Emir of Qatar to be an uncensored voice in the Middle East, emboldened to present dissenting views and challenge authority. The staff came almost exclusively from the BBC's Arabic service. While they were journalists of the highest caliber, al-Jazeera initially lacked an editorial board to impose balance on the writers, so the network suffered from freedom of speech gone wild, with no voice of reason to encourage restraint, impose a burden of proof or provide balance between opposing views.Since then, al-Jazeera has issued a code of ethics and is generally considered to be a serious, professional news outlet, though the American right (and others) would disagree with that assessment.
The proliferation of "news" blogs raises a similar issue. While in democratic countries a blogger is free to write anything he or she pleases (with some limits, such as British libel laws), the fact that anyone with an internet connection can publish one-sided accounts, exaggerations and even outright fabrications is worrisome, especially as blogs link to and quote one another, creating a self-confirming web of conspiracy theorists. How can societies balance the imperative of free speech and the desirability of a professional, ethical press? Moreover, professional news organizations like Fox News seem to be increasingly tolerant of sensationalistic, unfounded claims by their anchors and "journalists" - for example, the outrageous claims that Barrack Obama is a Muslim, or wasn't born in the United States. (The idea that being Muslim would be something to hold against the president, or anyone else, is a separate and equally appalling issue.) Why does Fox's editorial board (or what passes for one) tolerate and, it seems, even encourage this kind of behavior?
Link to blogs - "free speech" vs professional journalism
Importance of professional press - business model in peril
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/01/end-times/7220/
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/06/how-to-save-the-news/8095
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/05/google-powerpoint/56360
http://www.al-bab.com/media/aljazeera.htm
I started this post on Thursday and meant to polish my thoughts before Friday night -- and then my week ran away with me, so it's a good thing that I had scheduled the post to go live at 11:59 on Friday night, while I was struggling to stay awake at the wheel on my way to Ocean City. See, Professor, told you I'd be posting from weird places ;)
ReplyDeleteOver the past few months the Atlantic has had great coverage (see links in main post) of the state of journalism today, and especially how the disappearance of its business model threatens democracy as we know it. As the public increasingly demands free information, and non-professionals (including some outright unprofessionals) are more and more able to get their opinions (and sadly their own facts) out there, do we run the risk of devolving into a "misinformation society"? If professional journalism disappears due to a lack of funding, who or what will fill the role of the fourth estate of government?
Now, as discussed in class, it's hardly the first time that some new-fangled technology has allegedly threatened democracy as it was known at the time, so I'm not inclined to panic, but I do wonder what systems will evolve to replace the professional newspaper or magazine, with an editorial board at its helm.