There he goes again
Michael Gorman is reliable - I can always count on him for a long winded, uninformed rant about the evils of the internet. Here's his lede today:
The life of the mind in the age of Web 2.0 suffers, in many ways, from an increase in credulity and an associated flight from expertise. Bloggers are called “citizen journalists”; alternatives to Western medicine are increasingly popular, though we can thank our stars there is no discernable “citizen surgeon” movement; millions of Americans are believers in Biblical inerrancy -- the belief that every word in the Bible is both true and the literal word of God, something that, among other things, pits faith against carbon dating; and, scientific truths on such matters as medical research, accepted by all mainstream scientists, are rejected by substantial numbers of citizens and many in politics.
Here's the problem - none of the problems he raises are due to bad information on the net. Every single one of the information gaps he cites as worrisome is old - I remember reading about each and every one of them in "Time" and "Newsweek" as a teenager.
Gorman seems to believe that pre-web, there was a "golden age" of journalism, when facts didn't get distorted, and reporters got things right with unerring accuracy. Hmm - Back in the 70's, I remember the big climate scare being "the coming ice age". Now, it's "global warming". Without wading into that debate, I'll note that they can't both be correct - and I'll also note that both are memes that were (or in the latter case, are) heavily pushed by the media.
Gorman is writing on the Britannica site, so I understand why he's trying very hard to make his case without bringing up Wikipedia. I've written about Wikipedia and encyclopedias before - to summarize, Wikipedia is edited every single day by a self selected group of editors. Things like Britannica are edited periodically by a paid staff of editors. Does one group have biases while the other is magically objective? I don't think so. Depending on the topic being written about, "experts" can be hard to find, or extremely biased by the surrounding culture. For instance - how would an encyclopedia written by a group of recognized experts have dealt with Africa circa 1900? How would the text differ from one written - again, by a set of recognized experts - a year ago?
The splendid, objective expertise that Gorman imagines in the world of editors and professional writes doesn't exist now, and it's never existed. Biases - conscious and unconscious - have crept in consistently. Scientific errors (due to incomplete or inaccurate understanding of the underlying science) have always been around, and will always be around.
I read a fair amount of history, and I like to get a start on topics that may be of interest to me on Wikipedia. I find that the articles there range from good to excellent on the area I'm interested in (European history, mostly). Gorman would probably tell me to visit a "real" encyclopedia; I'd advise him to read this, which I addressed to him 18 months ago. Gorman was in "gatekeeper" mode then, and he's still there now.
Oh, and do read Clay Shirkey's response to Gorman.
Technorati Tags: hubris
Comments
There you go again
[Isaac Gouy] June 14, 2007 12:49:19.435
James Robertson wrote Without wading into that debate, I'll note that they can't both be correct ...
Without wading into that debate, I'll note that what was written back in the 70's could be a reasonable presentation of what was known in back in the 70's, and what is written now could be a reasonable presentation of what is known now.
Missing the Point...
[ James Robertson] June 14, 2007 13:59:21.745
Comment by James Robertson
The point being, legacy media are no more (and no less) expert than new media. Gorman is pining for the days when he was one of the arbiters of fact; he's unhappy that the rest of us can look at the source material now.
. . .
[ Troy Brumley] June 14, 2007 16:29:40.303
Comment by Troy Brumley
Astoundingly, Jim, many of your arguments actually support Noam Chomsky's positions, but I know you don't agree with him. Odd :)
On point
[Isaac Gouy] June 14, 2007 18:55:32.201
James Robertson wrote Missing the point
Nope, simply noting the false argument you made in an attempt to support your point.
Maybe you are confused by the idea that the scientific evidence available now is different than the scientific evidence available in the 70's but that's no reason to make derogatory remarks about journalists.
James Robertson wrote The point being, legacy media are no more (and no less) expert than new media.
Expert in what? Journalism? Earth science?
Isaac..
[ James Robertson] June 14, 2007 19:33:51.844
Comment by James Robertson
Isaac: "Maybe you are confused by the idea that the scientific evidence available now is different than the scientific evidence available in the 70's but that's no reason to make derogatory remarks about journalists. "
That makes the point I was trying to get across. Gorman seems to think that all knowledge resides with print journalists. Wikipedia is an example of incremental knowledge building at work.
Credulity and expertise
[George Paci] June 15, 2007 11:00:50.615
"an increase in credulity and an associated flight from expertise"
Interesting. What I see is a decrease in credulity: readers don't even trust journalists to get facts right (because the Web has helped them see pervasive instances of journalists getting the facts completely wrong, or just plain making them up).
I also see a flight to expertise: why settle for what a muddle-headed journalism major has to say about, say, computer security, when you can go read something from Bruce Schneier (who then gives you links to further, more-technical material)?
Of course, what Gorman's complaining about is a flight from his "expertise", and an increase in readers' credulity of people who don't know how to write a proper lede and use inverted-pyramid style.
Incidentally, a lot of what the web exposes is journalists failing to live up to their own profession's standards: getting quotes right, contacting both sides for a story, accurately reporting facts, etc.
That makes the point I was trying to get across
[Isaac Gouy] June 15, 2007 11:55:16.035
James wrote "That makes the point I was trying to get across..."
Really
How do you think the suggestion that journos in the 70's reported 70's science, and journos in the 07's report 07's science, makes your point?
James wrote "Gorman seems to think that..."
Could that be one of them thar strawman thingies?
standards
[Isaac Gouy] June 15, 2007 12:01:33.440
George Paci wrote "... failing to live up to their own profession's standards ..."
Let's make the implicit explicit - at least they have professional standards to live up to! ;-)
Do Custom Markup?
[Isaac Gouy] June 15, 2007 12:16:01.440
I uncheck Do Custom Markup? and Preview but the preview page doesn't notice that I unchecked Do Custom Markup? so when I click Submit things get messed up!
Re: There he goes again
[ James Robertson] June 15, 2007 14:04:48.794
Comment by James Robertson
Yep - that's a bug