How the Internet Has Changed How We Consume and React to News - Essay Example

? How the Internet Has Changed How We Consume and React to News The Internet has produced a new way of looking at the news. Before the Internet, people were beholden to the mainstream press. If the mainstream press wanted to cover a certain item, while ignoring other items, then this was the news that was disseminated to the masses. There really was not a good way to fact check the media, nor understand the stories which were not covered in the media. Moreover, as Neil Postman (1984) states, the news shows were focused upon trivialities, superficialities and fluff. The news anchors who disseminated the news had the same mirthful expressions when they were reporting tragedies and comedy. The news presented issues in the same 45 second format, which makes even the most important issues seems trivial. Now, however, with the Internet, in particular the citizen bloggers and the satirical shows, there is a way to not only uncover buried information about stories that the mainstream media does not deem fit to cover, but there is also a way to fact-check the media and hold them accountable. This, perhaps, is the most important way that the Internet has changed how the audience perceives and consumes the news. Citizen Bloggers and Satirical Shows, and How They Help the Viewer Discern News One of the major changes in the way that the public understands news events is that these events are often filtered through what Hayes (2008) refers to as “citizen press critics” (p. 1). These “citizen press credits” are more commonly known as bloggers, and they work as a kind of “fifth estate” who attempt to keep the mainstream media honest. Lopez (2010) states that these bloggers are important to democracy, in that it shows that anybody can contribute to the discourse of politics and civility. Johnson & Kaye (2008) conducted a study and found that blogs are generally seen as a credible source of information, which makes them even more influential in conveying the news. Moreover, Lopez (2010) asserts that making news interactive, which blogs can accomplish by allowing the blog readers to make comments, makes the on-line experience richer, dynamic and shared. The Internet, in general, contributes to this sense of richness and dynamism, because it enables anybody to check out what the media is saying, which is in contrast to the way that things used to work, which was that the citzenry had to accept what the media was telling them, as there was not a way for the average person to find data to refute it. Moreover, Lopez (2010) asserts that the Internet, and the citizen bloggers, as important in that these mediums do not allow the media to control the message. As individuals filter and diffuse news through the peer to peer networks, and there is real-time fact checking involved, the media message might be watered down and more uncontrolled, and this is a good thing, according to Lopez (2010). Alternatively, the Internet can provide information about news that the mainstream media may decline to cover. An example of this is that, after September 11, and during the Iraq war, the mainstream media did not cover the issue of Iraqi deaths, so, more and more, citizens searched on the Internet regarding this topic, and it became the topic of blogs as well (Salwen et al., 2005). This is important, because, as Li (2006) notes, the media often sets the agenda, and the priorities on the issues that it will cover. This, in turn, colors how people may view a certain event, as well as how many citizens are aware of certain issues and events. It may also color how important an issue or event is perceived – if the media covers something extensively, then this topic or issue will be seen as important, and the opposite of the media declines to cover this event or issue (Li, 2006). However, the citizen critics may keep a buried issue alive, or bring it to fore, which is helpful to people who do not want to be influenced by the media about certain events, and people who want to know about underreported stories. The Internet, in general, is also helpful in this regard, as it can present information that citizens may not otherwise get from the mainstream media. The citizen critics are gaining influence at a time when mainstream newspapers are increasingly losing influence. According to Ryfe (2007), the implosion of Knight Ridder, along with the fact that television news programs are laying off their workers and slashing their budgets, shows the signs of traditional news decline (Ryfe, 2007, p. 723). iRyfe (2007) states that The Daily Show is increasingly a place where people, especially younger people, obtain their news. Jones & Baym (2010) assert that Jon Stewart, along with Stephen Colbert, may be thought of as post-modern news disseminators, as their programs blend information with entertainment. That said, Jones & Baym (2010) argue that these shows also are examples of modernism, because, in addition to providing entertainment with the news, Stewart and Colbert also function in much the same way as bloggers do, in that they offer a critique to the mainstream press. When the mainstream press is not being entirely truthful, or if the mainstream press is virtually ignoring an important issue, Colbert and Stewart are there to offer their patented “b-s detectors”, and hold the mainstream press accountable, just like bloggers do (Jones & Baym, 2010). In short, the Internet allows individuals to be informed by enabling them to search for information that they receive in the mainstream media, to find out if this information is accurate. Moreover, the Internet also filters stories through bloggers and satirical news shows, such as Jon Stewart, by enabling Stewart’s show to be broadcast on Internet services, such as Hulu, thus enabling individuals without cable to access Stewart’s show seven days a week. This enabling the citizenry the chance to find out for themselves about news stories, through their own research, blog posts and satirical shows, will make the citizenry better informed, if they so choose to be. This is in contrast to the cynical way that Postman (1984) saw the way that people were informed in the age of television, before the Internet. Postman (1984) states that the way that citizens used to be exposed to the news was superficially. For instance, newscasts might use music to ensure the viewer that they should not be alarmed about something. The way that the newscaster looks is also indicative on how the news will be perceived – if the newscaster looks acceptable, then the newscaster is liable to be believed. Moreover, Postman (1984) states that news was generally considered entertainment, because the length of any story is only 45 seconds, which means that every bit of news will seem trivial. The demeanor of a newscaster was also suspect, as they convey the same type of enthusiasm, no matter what kind of tragedy they are reporting on – a newscaster might report on a story about a cute dog, and have the exact same demeanor if he or she is talking about mass killings and earthquakes (Postman, 1984). A good example of this might be the newscasts that occurred during 9/11 – as the second plane smashed into the second building, on-air, many of the newscasters reporting the event of the second plane smashing into the second building had no hint of alarm in their voice, and reported the news of the second plane with the same calm tone that they would take if they were reporting a minor occurrence. Conclusion Postman (1984) states that television news was basically fluff and entertainment, and conveyed very little of what should be important to the viewer. This was exacerbated by the stylistic issues of the daily news, how music plays and the newscaster might “tell you about the plane crash with a gleam in her eye,” as Don Henley sang in Dirty Laundry. Because of this, Postman (1984) states that television news stories presented the news as “a type of discourse that abandons logic, reason, sequence and the rules of contradiction” (Postman, 1984, p. 105). However, the age of the Internet may change this. It certainly may not change the way that the television news portrays stories – a quick glance at any news program shows that the stories are still short, the anchors still report tragedies with mirthful expressions, and that they still use music to show that the viewer should not be concerned about story X or Y. Moreover, the media still dictates how much an issue is covered. What has changed, however, is that bloggers and satirical shows call out the media, by covering little covered issues and stories, by correcting the media record, and by showing how cynical the mainstream media is. This, perhaps, is the most important way that the Internet has changed how people react to news. Sources Used Hayes, Arthur (2008). Press critics are the fifth estate. New York: Praeger. Johnson, T. & Kaye, B. (2009) In blog we trust? Deciphering credibility of components of the internet among politically interested internet users. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(1), 175-182. Jones, Jeffrey & Geoffrey Baym (2010). A dialogue on satire news and the crisis of truth in postmodern political television. Journal of Communication Theory, 34 (3), 278-294. Li, X. (2006) Internet newspapers: The making of a mainstream medium. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Postman, N. (1985) Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Viking. Ryfe, David (2007). The future of media politics. Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 10(4), 723- 738. Salwen, M. (2005) Online new and the public. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Read More