The Peoples Media

Before the modern networking that dominates today's lifestyle, news was handed down from large, well funded print and broadcast companies and spread amongst the people along accepted routes of communication. In this response to the article "Audience Atomization Overcome" by Jay Rosen (1), the changing landscape of information and what it could mean for the population at large will be discussed.

Atomization is a description of the overpowering media distribution system that existed before the adoption of the internet; small independent newsletters and public access cable have been in operation, but the money and influence present in commercial outlets greatly overshadows these sources. The effect that this monopoly has had on our freedoms and democracy has been quite insidious, the consolidation of belief that results in an easily controlled audience is a very useful tool to those that seek to maintain and regulate power.

The top down format of information access has led to very isolated opinions that are usually quite polarized; like-minded people often associate with one another and discuss the programming that they each consume without consideration of contrasting views. Lateral discourse is rendered non-existent, people are 'told' what the valid beliefs of others are, effectively being led by the nose to conclusions that are selected by a controlling few. This is the problem that atomization strives to define and that the internet may be the answer to.

In Rosen's article, an illustration popularized by Daniel C. Hallin is used to show the stratification of opinions that is fostered by the mainstream press. The diagram is a set of two concentric circles that show the relationship between common views; the smallest circle being common beliefs not subject to scrutiny, a second larger ring to describe common ideas that are in public discourse and an outer field that is the realm of deviance, opinions that are considered to have no foundation or to be of little consequence to the public. These spheres of control result in an alarming authority of the press, a situation in which we commonly discard or are not exposed at all to radical views and contrary beliefs.

The upswing in the number of citizens online has led to a debasement of this authority, we are exposed daily to myriad sources of information that are often in opposition to one another and carry equally recognized reputations. The active searching required by the internet is rather different than the passive viewing that takes place in conventional sources, but an uninformed individual adrift in a sea of 'news' could carry its own perils.

The shift to an online lifestyle has created a space for many opposing points, but the free access to knowledge could lead to a confusing flurry of information that swamps even the most intrepid of explorers. In a time when much of our tangible world moves toward cyberspace to meet nearly all of their needs, how are we to distinguish between an institution of legitimacy and those that reside within the realm of speculation?

As universities begin to teach online, our shopping is done online and our social life is online, what worth can be given to the brick and mortar that houses our material world? My main concern is that, if our past carelessness is an indication, our future credible sources of journalism will be in direct competition with middle aged men blogging in their underwear from their mothers basement.





(1) http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2009/01/12/atomization.html

*author was fully clothed during the writing of this article