The risks of disintermediation

Follow The Media recently ran an email interview with me - largely on arabic media and audiences. However the question of disintermediation came up - and whether there is a future for "professional" news or whether citizen journalism and user content will cut out the "middle man" completely.

I think what's happening in the media is the same as in other professions - but the risks are not recognised in the same way. Any GP will tell you that many patients now arrive having already diagnosed their symptoms via the internet. But clearly the risk of relying on that and doing away with doctors is very high. You can now invest online and conduct many financial transactions - but unless you really understand finance, the risk of cutting out professionals altogether could be ruinous. You can conduct many legal transactions on the internet with no legal training - but again the consequences of getting something wrong are obviously so high that most people will still use lawyers for key transactions.

The risk of using any old source uncovered on the net for key news or information is less obvious, but arguably could also be high. Unless you are net or media literate (and many still aren't, just as I am not medically, financially or legally expert) you may not be able to assess the quality of the information provided. The consequences are likely to be less ruinous than for other "higher" professions but they do exist. One consequence is the number of people who now believe that the world simply consists of a swirl of competing opinion. It doesn't. There are still facts, and evidence and judgement. We still need a currency of high quality, tested information as a bedrock for debate and comment. And there are ways of detecting dis-information and spin, and disciplines in assessing and compiling information and news fairly. It's called editing (although too many now confuse that with censorship as it involves leaving some things out...)

"The media" has not done itself many favours in the last few years and has lost the trust of some. But it still has virtues which I believe will be needed in the future as much as in the past.

Comments

[Euan Semple]

It is all about trust and all I know is I find watching TV news an increasingly uncomfortable experience.

[Nigel Barlow]

Richard,

The professional journalist will always act as a gatekeeper as you refer on the "Follow the media interview".One point that you made about the BBC and other large organsations being able to report from inaccessable areas,I am not sure that I do agree with.Blogging in particualar has opened a door to areas which the journalist found inaccessable.Eg Baghdad during 2003,Zimbabwe currently.

[richard S]

I agree - that is one of the great strengths of blogging and aggregation (Global Voices is a good example). However, there are still places and issues which require significant resources to reach. Personally I place great store by eyewitness reportingfrom someone you can trust - whoever provides it.

[ploop]

Richard, I agree with you regarding the trusting of sources and the need for people to understand that stories have context and background (which for those not web savvy is sometimes difficult).

However, I'm sure you would accept that your comment, "are still facts, and evidence" suggests that news broadcasters simply broadcast the news. This is not the case with Fox News, so I would be loathe to think American's believe Fox's view on something over an eye witness on the ground in Basra.

[richard S]

Well I see Fox as part of the swirl of opinion - and in need of facts and evidence to countermand them! So I'm definitely NOT saying all broadcasters are good and better than all bloggers - far from it.

[ploop]

I am sorry Richard. re-reading my post, I realise my inelegant writing suggested something it wasn't supposed to. I agree, a swirl of opinion is vital when following any story.
I think I have a natural nervousness to the supposition (not from you)that bloggers are simply giving an opinion whereas news organisations are giving the news - hence my mention of Fox.

[Peter Vautier]

Hi,

Could you please give me your definition of "Media Literacy" ?
(we are doing a media literacy project, and would be interested to hear your definition)

[richard S]

Hi Peter. I think it's fundamentally about being able to make independent judgements and assessments about the media you are consuming - rather than taking them at face value. Wikipedia's definitions seem pretty good to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_literacy