In talking about the demise of CNN's science reporting a couple of days ago, I wrote
The fragmentation of television markets means that viewers simply switch channels if they don't find what's on interesting or engaging. That means "important" news, whether on scientific or political issues, is easily swept away by celebrities and personal interest stories. And that's on news channels. The good news is that thanks to the Discovery Channel, the National Geographic Channel, Animal Planet, and the like, there's actually more environmental and scientific programming available now than there was twenty or thirty years ago -- for those who are interested enough to watch. The bad news, if you're inclined to avoid environmental and scientific programming, it's easier than ever to avoid.Jay Rosen argues that media fragmentation, audience atomization as he calls it, is beneficial. Why?
In the age of mass media, the press was able to define the sphere of legitimate debate with relative ease because the people on the receiving end were atomized-- meaning they were connected "up" to Big Media but not across to each other. But today one of the biggest factors changing our world is the falling cost for like-minded people to locate each other, share information, trade impressions and realize their number. Among the first things they may do is establish that the "sphere of legitimate debate" as defined by journalists doesn't match up with their own definition.He may be right1 about the way in which blogging has allowed groups that major media sources defined (unconsciously) as outside the sphere of legitimate debate to force their way into the legitimate debate. If he is, then audience atomization is a good thing for our democracy.
In the past there was nowhere for this kind of sentiment to go. Now it collects, solidifies and expresses itself online. Bloggers tap into it to gain a following and serve demand. Journalists call this the "echo chamber," which is their way of downgrading it as a reliable source. But what's really happening is that the authority of the press to assume consensus, define deviance and set the terms for legitimate debate is weaker when people can connect horizontally around and about the news.
Even so those of us who want to engage the public more broadly in science are faced with a problem. Instead of having a small number of major media outlets to focus our efforts on and instead of knowing that if we did there's a good chance that we'd reach a broad audience, we now have hundreds of cable channels and millions of blogs catering to thousands of specialized interests. Rosen argues that marginalized groups have used the Internet to expand the realm of legitimate debate, but how do we use the Internet to enhance the quality of information used in public debate?2
1I'm certainly not going to argue with him about it. He's a professional when it comes to analysis of media and journalism. I'm a rank amateur.
2I claim that scientific information, about the consequences of CO2 emissions or of biodiversity loss, is objective in a way different from the "objectivity" that reporters claim for themselves. If scientists confine themselves to providing empirical data relevant to questions already being asked, that data is non-political in a way that journalists decisions about what's in the sphere of legitimate debate isn't. A problem for scientists arises when the combination of empirical data and their personal values suggests that the policy debate is asking the wrong questions. Changing the terms of the debate is a political act.
Leave a comment