Media Slackers weighs in:
Although I often believe in conspiracies, I don't think the alarmist attitude is taken intentionally by the mainstream media. As you briefly mentioned, I think it is born from ignorance. Taking one example, we can see the full affect of ignorance at work.
The 60 Minutes report you mentioned was pitiful on many levels, but the scariest part was Lesley Stahl's ignorance of the subject matter which lead her to interview people who were experts only in title and to therefore over-inflate the threat. Conficker is something to worry about, but it is nothing new or unique. None of these threats are new. However, because of the tremendous growth and spread of technology, little to no education has occurred to explain the dangers inherent in an online world. You wouldn't just let a 16 year old drive a car without some instruction and yet we allow young and old alike to live and publish their lives online. Everything from personal, professional and financial is there for the world to see and it takes more than a week-long boot camp with Symantec to teach a reporter how to convey this message effectively and accurately.
The mainstream media has a tremendous opportunity in front of it to explain the inherent dangers AND the opportunities of a digital lifestyle, however it needs to go back to school if it hopes to deliver this message. Why do you think most people under 25-30 don't rely on network television for their news? First, it is cumbersome and irrelevant, but more importantly if a satellite interview is needed to explain Twitter, how can we expect the media to effectively define privacy concerns? Perhaps if network television and newspapers were to fully report on this subject the way it should be reported, they would discover a new subscriber base.
I think this is close to our manifesto at Digital Nation. As a program, we are dedicated to tackling exactly the challenge that Media Slackers describes: explaining both the inherent dangers and the opportunities of a digital lifestyle. But balancing the two is not easy. While the media certainly has a tendency to take an alarmist attitude toward potential tech dangers, it also follows a fairly typical hype cycle when confronted with exciting new tech innovations. So why is this, and what can we do about it?
Hype and fear don't result entirely from intentional, devious decisions by reporters and their editors to help sell content, although this does certainly occur. The greater culprit, I think, is simply human nature. This is to some degree unavoidable, but it's also not an acceptable excuse. There are steps we each take on a daily basis to overcome our primal emotions in order to do our jobs effectively. The solution in this case is information -- or, as Media Slackers says, "go back to school." As a reporter, it certainly helps to know your subject. When covering the digital lifestyle, it helps even more to live it. In fact, I think this is practically essential because it helps to dampen the awe factor. Reporting is about asking informed questions, not simply the kinds of starry-eyed questions you'd ask if you'd never heard of something before. Otherwise, people who are curious could call up the same sources and ask them the questions themselves. Unfortunately, many of Stahl's questions fall into the latter category, which I think makes it clear that she doesn't live a digital lifestyle.
Stahl thus approached the Conficker virus with a noticeable awe, but is this awe factor unique to the technology beat? Probably not. However, I do think that the speed with which change occurs in the tech industries leads to a greater need for reporters to be immersed in the technology they're covering. It would be hard to report on the rapid rise of Twitter, the business of Apple's App Store or the release of the Kindle 2 if you had teleported to 2009 from just 5 years ago. However, information and immersion is only half the battle; reporters must also exercise good judgment. And this is where advances in technology can make it tricky.
One issue that has come up in our research time and again is that, with the speed at which technology advances, no one really knows for sure how it's changing us and what the consequences might be. Since we are all part of a grand experiment, so to speak -- including the reporters who are immersed in all of this themselves -- does this justify airing opinions that might be more alarmist than would normally be acceptable? More on this soon.
-Jeff
RSS
Comments