A couple interesting developments in the WikiLeaks phenomena. First a group of hackers in support of WikiLeaks attacked Mastercard (among others) and shut their Web site down. Then Russia of all countries comes out in support of WikiLeaks and actually suggests that Assange be considered for a Nobel Peace Prize.
So what exactly is going on?
What we are witnessing is a total bypass of traditional media and an embracing, if only by a minority at this time, of truly independent (some might say rogue) journalism.
I hate to say this, but this has come about as a result of the mainstream media failing to live up to the expectations the public has of them.
Now, being a reporter is a tough job. Half your job is being a detective and the other half is writing compelling narrative - both these skills are by no means easy to master. Toss in an endless cycle of deadlines and you've got one heck of a stressful job.
That being said, the reality is that the media isn't what it was 40 years ago. Media outlets simply don't have the time to dig up stories... to spend their time working (and developing) sources and digging around in the muck and mire to bring the truth to light. The media today have to wade through hundreds of news releases a day and pick out the news and then cover it.
So what we've created is a lean and mean media machine capable of producing tons of content, but one that lacks the depth of yesteryears.
Did the media see the tech bubble crash in 2000? Nope.
Did it see a world-wide financial crisis coming? Nope.
Did it have any hints that a major terrorist attack was set to occur in 2001? Nope.
Did it unveil that the whole anthrax reason for going in to Iraq was bogus? Nope.
Did they get embarassing photos of Mel Gibson after the release of his rage-filled calls to his ex-wife? Yes.
The reality is that the media has become reactive. For much of the public, the media seems almost like an institution now, a business entity less focused on protecting the public's interest through freedom of information and more focused on simply informing the public of what's new on any given day.
The only area where they seem to really pursue investigative journalism is when it comes to celebrities. At which point they'll bring in helicopters if they have to in order to find out what so-and-so is doing and grab some pictures.
You can't blame journalists, because they work based on the demands their outlets put on them, which are generally to churn out content. Really the issue is a dollar and cents one... media outlets simply can't afford to spend the kind of money it takes to really investigate stories and still remain profitable for shareholders.
Now some would say that there's a invisible wall there as well, a boundary wherein media no longer wants to be too disruptive within society because let's face it, the primary source of revenue for media outlets is advertising. If they start digging up some really nasty dirt on various companies and politicians, it runs the risk of scaring people away from advertising.
It's against this backdrop that WikiLeaks come to be and why it is seeing a small group of supporters prepared to go to extraordinary lengths and risks by attacking blue-chip US corporations who threaten to play a role in hindering WikiLeaks.
Yes, some of this also has to do with the proliferation of the Internet, but a lot of it has to do with a public belief that the news today is more of an events calendar, a surface recounting of what went on yesterday.
Things tend not to thrive unless situations allow for them to plant their roots. The past 10 years has been an onslaught of negative world-events and unfortunately the media has failed to act as the canary in the coal mine which the public (rightly or wrongly) use to see its' role as being.
Perhaps the world has become too complex to try and find stories before they've even happened.
Perhaps it's become to easy to simply eat the meals that PR folks serve every day with their thousands of news releases.
Perhaps the fact that stories break and are world-wide in minutes creates a sense of fear that there's no time to really sift through all the facets to a story before publishing (because that risks someone else breaking the story in the meantime).
For whatever the reasons, the only reason WikiLeaks has been able to plant its roots so deeply (deep enough that shutting WikiLeaks down evokes a countermeasure response against governments and corporations), is that there is a desire within the public to know the truth behind what is actually going on.
It will be interesting to see where this road goes, but I think we are witnessing just the beginnings of a new phenomena and one that really isn't very surprising (after all, this is what the Internet was destined to do when you really think about - act as a medium to increase free and open communications around the globe, for better and for worse).
What we are witnessing is a total bypass of traditional media and an embracing, if only by a minority at this time, of truly independent (some might say rogue) journalism.
I hate to say this, but this has come about as a result of the mainstream media failing to live up to the expectations the public has of them.
Now, being a reporter is a tough job. Half your job is being a detective and the other half is writing compelling narrative - both these skills are by no means easy to master. Toss in an endless cycle of deadlines and you've got one heck of a stressful job.
That being said, the reality is that the media isn't what it was 40 years ago. Media outlets simply don't have the time to dig up stories... to spend their time working (and developing) sources and digging around in the muck and mire to bring the truth to light. The media today have to wade through hundreds of news releases a day and pick out the news and then cover it.
So what we've created is a lean and mean media machine capable of producing tons of content, but one that lacks the depth of yesteryears.
Did the media see the tech bubble crash in 2000? Nope.
Did it see a world-wide financial crisis coming? Nope.
Did it have any hints that a major terrorist attack was set to occur in 2001? Nope.
Did it unveil that the whole anthrax reason for going in to Iraq was bogus? Nope.
Did they get embarassing photos of Mel Gibson after the release of his rage-filled calls to his ex-wife? Yes.
The reality is that the media has become reactive. For much of the public, the media seems almost like an institution now, a business entity less focused on protecting the public's interest through freedom of information and more focused on simply informing the public of what's new on any given day.
The only area where they seem to really pursue investigative journalism is when it comes to celebrities. At which point they'll bring in helicopters if they have to in order to find out what so-and-so is doing and grab some pictures.
You can't blame journalists, because they work based on the demands their outlets put on them, which are generally to churn out content. Really the issue is a dollar and cents one... media outlets simply can't afford to spend the kind of money it takes to really investigate stories and still remain profitable for shareholders.
Now some would say that there's a invisible wall there as well, a boundary wherein media no longer wants to be too disruptive within society because let's face it, the primary source of revenue for media outlets is advertising. If they start digging up some really nasty dirt on various companies and politicians, it runs the risk of scaring people away from advertising.
It's against this backdrop that WikiLeaks come to be and why it is seeing a small group of supporters prepared to go to extraordinary lengths and risks by attacking blue-chip US corporations who threaten to play a role in hindering WikiLeaks.
Yes, some of this also has to do with the proliferation of the Internet, but a lot of it has to do with a public belief that the news today is more of an events calendar, a surface recounting of what went on yesterday.
Things tend not to thrive unless situations allow for them to plant their roots. The past 10 years has been an onslaught of negative world-events and unfortunately the media has failed to act as the canary in the coal mine which the public (rightly or wrongly) use to see its' role as being.
Perhaps the world has become too complex to try and find stories before they've even happened.
Perhaps it's become to easy to simply eat the meals that PR folks serve every day with their thousands of news releases.
Perhaps the fact that stories break and are world-wide in minutes creates a sense of fear that there's no time to really sift through all the facets to a story before publishing (because that risks someone else breaking the story in the meantime).
For whatever the reasons, the only reason WikiLeaks has been able to plant its roots so deeply (deep enough that shutting WikiLeaks down evokes a countermeasure response against governments and corporations), is that there is a desire within the public to know the truth behind what is actually going on.
It will be interesting to see where this road goes, but I think we are witnessing just the beginnings of a new phenomena and one that really isn't very surprising (after all, this is what the Internet was destined to do when you really think about - act as a medium to increase free and open communications around the globe, for better and for worse).
Comments
Post a Comment