How Wikipedia Puts The Existence Of A Free Press At Risk, And A Free Press Will Die, Not With A Bang, But A Wiki Options Rating

[Jon Awbrey]

How Wikipedia Is Putting The Existence Of A Free Press At Risk

Wikipedia has shown us that a mass medium can be rendered so plastic and so well-leveraged that any part of it can be manipulated by a relatively small number of people, in ways that defy a free society's usual means to guard against it, so long as the special interests in question have a moderate amount of resources and the will to do so. If there are portions of the content that remain untouched, it is for two reasons only: (1) no one has conceived a stake in them yet, (2) virgin forest makes for good cover.

If you're thinking that Wikipedia is the Latest Thing in Blows Against The Empire, then you have a DoubleThink coming.

Jon Awbrey, Comment in The Guardian, 30 Jan 2009, 2:02am

[Daniel Brandt]

For decades, many universities in the U.S. have had journalism departments for undergrads who wanted to major in journalism. While this has been diluted since the 1960s by expanding these departments into "broadcast journalism" or "mass communications" areas of study, it still remains true that a professional journalist in print media (newspapers and magazines) is sometimes a person who can make a difference with an investigative story. Woodward and Bernstein were such a big hit in the 1970s that journalism departments became more popular.

It's also true that many print editors are willing to give their reporters a bit of freedom to develop their own stories and pursue leads on the company's dime. When a print reporter calls someone for an interview and identifies himself, the person who is called has a sense that certain standards of decency, common sense, and professionalism are a part of the mix. For example, there are standards about "off the record," "on background," "not for attribution," with the default being that everything is "on the record" as soon as the reporter identifies himself (a real name and affiliation, not a screen name!), unless there is agreement otherwise before the interview begins. Also, the person being interviewed knows that the editor and publisher of the newspaper is legally responsible.

This professional environment, which evolved over many decades, is essential for anyone who is trying to do investigative journalism. Bloggers cannot do this, and the entire framework of Wikipedia is in stark contrast to this professional environment.

My perception is that investigative journalism has been taking a dive in the U.S. ever since the Reagan era. But it wasn't until the Internet became popular that it went downhill very rapidly. Now it's just about gone, and if a few more newspapers go under, that will be the end of it.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Newspaper, more than any other type of media, had committed resources and developed contacts needed to engage in investigative journalism. This was true of even modest mid-size city papers.

When a print reporter calls someone for an interview and identifies himself, the person who is called has a sense that certain standards of decency, common sense, and professionalism are a part of the mix.

Let's not forget that the cartelization of these papers was already well underway 30 years ago, and they had become the mouthpieces of people like Katherine Graham, Sun Myung Moon, and Rupert Murdoch.

[Jon Awbrey]

Newspaper, more than any other type of media, had committed resources and developed contacts needed to engage in investigative journalism. This was true of even modest mid-size city papers.

When a print reporter calls someone for an interview and identifies himself, the person who is called has a sense that certain standards of decency, common sense, and professionalism are a part of the mix.

Let's not forget that the cartelization of these papers was already well underway 30 years ago, and they had become the mouthpieces of people like Katherine Graham, Sun Myung Moon, and Rupert Murdoch.

I think we all know how bad things had already gotten.

I don't think that's an argument for letting it get worse.

Jon

[Larry Sanger]

There is this thing called supply and demand, see. As long as there is a demand for credible news, and as long as there are enough people who do not find the average blog to be credible, there will be a market and hence a supply. The supply might be lower, but there's going to be a significant supply. And if somehow we can arrange for the demand for credible news to be to satisified without many people getting paid, well--great!

If there is anything to worry about, it is that not enough people will demand what I consider to be credible news.

But I'm guessing there are.