Now, more than ever, the news consumer doesn’t have to let a newspaper set the boundaries of discourse, or settle for a source that doesn’t reflect his or her attitudes. No longer do single sources monopolize the dominant mind. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch is still around—but there are also sources like the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, and the St. Louis Beacon, the Saint Louis Front Page, and the STL Syndicate. As Syracuse professor R. David Lankes writes, “There are simply more choices in whom to trust, and market forces have not come into play to limit choices. While this is true for virtually all media venues to some degree, the scale of choice on the internet make the internet particularly affected by shifts in authority.”
In his paper “Credibility on the internet: shifting from authority to reliability,” Lankes draws a distinction between authoritarianism and authoritativeness. Broadly, an authoritative source, when making a point, will say, “This is how it is—but don’t take my word for it, ask all these other sources who will confirm what I’m saying.” An authoritarian source, when making a point, will say, “This is how it is—because I say so.”
But in a communicative environment like the Internet, says Lankes, authoritarianism doesn’t work, because it implies that readers don’t have any other choice, or are unable to do their own research to come to their own conclusions on a subject. Online, it is harder to assert unilaterally the parameters of a dominant mind—to define a community and its (best) interests—because the community itself expects to play a substantial role in the defining. Online, it is insufficient to explain a controversial editorial decision with a casual “this is how it is, and this is what we did, and we’re not responsible to anyone else out there—what’re you gonna do about it?”
Well, there’s a lot that readers can do about it. They can go elsewhere for their news—or, for that matter, their conversation. (“This has to be one of the most unified, overwhelmingly negative response[s] to a story I’ve seen on this site, and perhaps anywhere, and it you just shrug it off [sic]. P.S. This is my last post on this site, and when I can get local news from the globe-democrat, I’m gone for good.”) They can register their discontent across the Internet. (“USPS will be sending Mr Kurt Pussy Greenbaum 12500 USPS boxes and 2400 priority mail envelopes within 5-7 days with love from reddit.com and the internet. Also, he is scheduled to have daily package pickups for the next 3 months for with international shipping.. I’m sure he has caught the attention of some government agency by now. Signed, Boxman”) They can create their own sources that compete with the incomplete perspective that a news outlet provides. (“Welcome to www.KurtGreenbaumIsAPussy.com, where we chronicle how an intolerant St. Louis douchebag pissed off the entire fucking Internet.”)
Greenbaum’s phone call was a violation of trust, and would have been a violation in any era. But the ferocity of the response—the utter rejection of the Post-Dispatch’s authority to do what it did—was an entirely modern thing, and it’s a direct consequence of newspapers’ outdated and medium-inappropriate reliance on the authoritarian credibility model.
As one commenter wrote: “What would a real blogger…a *real* “social media expert” do in a situation like yours? Would they have gone off on their own personal witch-hunt? Or, might they have taken some time to address the issue in myriad *different* ways? Perhaps a post about the tendency of modern colloquial language to be more profanity-laced than in days gone by? I think you’d have garnered a great deal of support for bemoaning that issue, and at the very least, you could have used the situation to do what you claim to understand about the “social media” - started a real conversation about the issue.”
Man, this is pretty deep stuff for such a stupid mistake this Greenbaum guy did. Either way, he got what was coming. I notice just recently he crawled out from underneath his rock and quietly started working again after a two or so month on-line vacation. One other thing, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch has always weighed more on the left than in the middle.
#1 Posted by Steve, CJR on Fri 5 Mar 2010 at 06:25 PM
"The news outlet’s role is to 'sort all these competing perspectives and, for better or for worse, assert the dominant one.”'"
Really? That is why "journalism" is dying. It's stopped being journalism and has become advocacy.
Most of us who consume the news feel the news outlet's role is to "report the news." Stop trying to asset perspectives; if necessary, include and explain them (and give comparable weight to counter-perspectives), but report the facts.
Stop asserting. Start reporting. Or die.
#2 Posted by jeff d, CJR on Mon 8 Mar 2010 at 01:15 PM
Is authority over community standards the issue? Or is it the right to enforce editorial standards?
Five years ago, my office was the work site for a consuling group that was advising the sponsors of a new think tank on issues of the northern plains about locations. My town was on the list because it is central, has higher education institutions, but is remote enough and small enough to offer a compatible environment for study and thought. When the decision was mae, the consultants had quite a list of the town's advantages. At the end of their presentation, they stunned us with the conclusion that the town would be an unsuitable place.
Their main reason was explained with comments from the local newspapers discussion board, comments which were abusive, insulting, and often just plain stupid. The consultants said that the kind of people who work in think tanks would not find an acceptable social environment in our town.
Immediately, the town promoters protested, saying the comments represented only a few individuals, not the attitudes of the community. The consultants said, wrong! The fact that a few people responded to the comments with other abusive and insuling comments rather than simply pointing out the scurrility indicated a community attitude that accepted that kind of discourse, and it indicates the level of thought, attitude, and discourse that is considered acceptable. They pointed out that discussion boards are dominated by people of this nature but that the community gives them assent.
I wonder what they would make of the Post Dispatch comments.
#3 Posted by Ann V, CJR on Mon 8 Mar 2010 at 02:36 PM
Both guys in this story are jerks. I don't think any lessons can be drawn from it.
Newspaper web sites shouldn't let people hide behind anonymity for the same reasons newspapers don't let people hide behind anonymity. It just brings out the worst in people and hurts, not helps, society.
#4 Posted by Keith Roberts, CJR on Mon 8 Mar 2010 at 04:42 PM
There is no Dominant Mind, as Jung proposed. There is a herd mentality which dominates every culture, It is an instinctive swarm response functioning at a survival level. We have developed multiple cultural expressions based on religious, racial, nationality, and economic differences since the internet has made it easy to give opinions a sense of reality by seeing them in print and having them debated regardless of whether or not they have any substantive value, discourse has degenerated to a personal attack on any opposing opinions. This as a herd response to fear, an emotion that spreads throughout the swarm causing mass flight and blind defense reactions.
Our government understands this and has used it to influence policies of benefit to special interests. The crowd seeks leadership and trusts government to preserve its safety. We are beginning to learn about the damage done to the people immobilized by a fear to think as individuals.
#5 Posted by Morton Kurzweil, CJR on Mon 8 Mar 2010 at 05:49 PM
You suck ghd. If I had a voodoo doll with your name on it, I'd dip it's hair in furniture polish.
Then I'd give the dog a new chew toy.
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 16 Apr 2010 at 10:07 PM