Chris Anderson, Editor-in-Chief of Wired magazine opened the second day at the SIIA Software Summit in San Francisco with a keynote presentation titled “Software and the Price of Free.” Mr. Anderson, who is a brilliant and engaging speaker, focused on how the economics of free are changing the way we consume information technology. I will cover the highlights of his presentation in a separate column.
I asked Chris Anderson his thoughts on the future of journalism, given the lack of barriers to entry, and the mass appeal of blogger and other user generated content. In response, he offered that the concept of journalism is hard to define in the 21st century, and mostly irrelevant.
Chris Anderson pointed that the marketplace has decided; anyone can report and write content, which is published and consumed online for free. It’s just where we’re going and nothing can stop it.
“But what about the old tenets of journalism?” was my next question.
“I don’t believe in those tenets” responded Mr. Anderson. He elaborated that those old principles are no longer applicable and he doesn’t consider himself a journalist.
I was intrigued and hooked for more. “But who checks the facts for what is published and consumed freely online?” I persisted. But my time had run out and I suspected that the conversation no longer held any appeal to him; or perhaps he had been confronted with the same questions persistently and was simply drained.
But I am still interested in the topic. Who will check my facts and the facts of my fellow columnists, bloggers and newly-appointed journalists? I would like to know.
Comments
To echo Mr. Anderson's tone... it really doesn't matter. Anyone who cares about the accuracy of content they consume online will go through the trouble to check it. The extent to which they check it is (usually) directly proportional to how important that information is to them. Let the producers take responsibility for what they write, and let consumers take responsibility for what they believe. I don't know that anyone has the resources for doing more than that.
Unfortunately there will always be (at least for the foreseeable future) those who believe anything they see "in print".
Dear John,
Thank you very much for your comment. I enjoy reading from people who have a view point, and I appreciate you taking the time to share yours.
I agree that the approach you are advocating is certainly where things seem to be going. It is the caveat emptor doctrine, very similar in concept to the laissez-faire economic philosophy. The problem with this approach is it leads to abuse, for reasons rooted in human psychology. Almost everyone wants to improve their social status in a community/society, whether that be through fame, prestige, money, appeal, or all of the above. Improved status means, at a basic biological level, improved chances of procreating the species. So long as the motivation is there, people will pursue all the methods possible and available to reach these goals. Publishing content and appearing as an authority is just another example or tool to improve social standing.
The problem with self-regulation or laissez-faire philisophies, is that they have failed time and again, and the collapse of the financial system last year is just another proof point.
I believe that a body of principles should be created for people (like myself) who don't have a formal journalism background. We should be required to disclose any affiliations, to verify our facts, and to be objective in our writing. I hope a body of governance will be created in the US and worldwide, with some type of a certification process.
Thaks again for your comment and I hope you will come back.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!