I went to a memorial service yesterday and was somewhat weirded out by the fact that I knew absolutely nobody there. Since I work in a bizarre kind of niche industry, I am often put in such situations, where I know things that people assume that I don't and isn't it weird that you're here because we don't expect you. It's one of the reasons I'm attracted to spycraft.
Anyway, on the way back home from San Diego's Kate Sessions Park overlooking majestic Mission Bay, I turned on the radio to KPFK, our Pacifica Radio affiliate in Southern California. It was rather fascinating to hear the kind of disjointed ranting they do because I haven't listened on a regular basis since 1987. The thing they were ranting about was the tangential to State of Play which I also saw of the weekend. It was print media vs the blogosphere. Now this morning I got a link about Twitter, some cartoon about dogs and Twitter disinformation and a request for a picture of my son from somebody who doesn't want it emailed, but snail mailed on Kodak paper.
Here's the problem. Everything we know about representative democracy and the imperatives of the Fourth Estate is undergoing profound change because of technology. This is, despite what anybody likes to think about , still the Information Age. And quite frankly, I think it is reasonable to believe that the Industrial Revolution which ultimately created the Jet Set was really just a precursor to what the real end will be, and that is more like village society. But before I go into any theories about village society, let me just focus on the KPFK debate and the the lede of Russell Crowe's latest flick.
I'm going to spoil it OK, so if you haven't already seen State of Play then you really need to stop reading this paragraph. But in the end, what happens is that what smells all over like a global conspiracy is really nothing more than a little local murder. If this film is to be taken as realistic, the fact that what sells newspapers is basically spectacular is absolutely right - it means that the business model for newspapers is very wrong and the only way it's going to change is when people realize that you cannot sell politics and sports in the same paper. Newspaper editors, I believe, think they are more important than they are- the fact of the matter is that it does come down to a few good writers, and a few good writers can be had for much less than the price of supporting all of that printing equipment and gasoline powerd distribution network. The resources of big newspapers don't seem to be doing what they should - how can it be all about the deadline? What difference does breaking news make, really? If it takes a persistent fellow like John Young at Cryptome some years and processing of FOIA cases to get the real deal on some story as important as exactly what's going on at Site R Raven Rock, then that's what it takes. You cannot feed that economy with classified ads. Newspapers have not adopted to the information economy. Newspapers are not our only news organizations, and the professionals in that business have to recognize.
When I speak about alternative literacy, I'm talking about the Long Tail, Dunbar's number and power laws. I'm talking about the ways in which particular information appeals to particular individuals that don't necessarily aggregate in the ways we think of 'the public'. It's true that a story about torture or mayhem will attract large audiences, but that's something that the blogosphere has proven it can do very well. Drawing large audiences is the point of all mass communications and propaganada, but are such affairs crucial to the running of the republic? In other words, if Hollywood takes over network news, is our democracy decidedly in decline? I think the answer is no in a way that sounds cynical on the surface - which is that the American Elite knows what it needs to know. Again it's not that the traditional media isn't important, it's just not important to the same fraction of society their marketing numbers suggest.
Think of it in terms of 'actionable information'. If every 5th grader in America was exposed to Julius Caesar, how many of them will make use of the wisdom it could impart? In the new world, only those 5th graders who *want* to see the play will, because the rest will have a choice - alternative literacy. You cannot force every 5th grader to watch, but the presumption of the old media is that they were owed that mass market share.
It might be disturbing to many that significant majorities are not attuned to the highest quality reporting that large media organizations could provide, but if you understand information theory the way I do you wouldn't be troubled. I think of it exactly like I think of the information about nuclear weapons. Like the fifth graders at the Shakespeare Festival, the information is out there to be had if you are persistent in pursuing it, but for that information to be actionable, requires no small effort on your part. The most valuable information is valuable to producers, not necessarily consumers. This is why high quality literacy doesn't apply to a consumer society. If snooty newspaper editors realized that, they wouldn't bleat so loudly. Or perhaps even more cynically, they do understand that which is why they sell classifieds and employ paparazzi with only a nod to serious journalism. Inventing CNN, Ted Turner had it right in the beginning. Now only Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal seem to have it right. They know that their audience is elite and will pay, and so that elite pays.
Again, I am using information theory. It takes energy to sustain knowledge and the discipline that makes that knowledge actionable. When the consumer can get a simulacrum of knowledge for free, the marginal utility of newsprint is not worth it, especially given the quality of information the web provides free. Note that all of this applies to higher education as well, except that higher education in America has priced itself out of reality. The bursting of that bubble is immanent. I'm attracted to spycraft - to information whose value is partly determined by the relative few people who know it.
We should take note of American suceptibility to markets. We are a market-oriented society. In that regard P.T. Barnum's aphorism applies. There is a sucker born every minute. But more aptly, if a fair price is whatever price the market will bear, such things apply to our literacy as well. A good education is what the market rewards whether or not that education includes anything of absolute value. A fair election is whatever the electorate will vote for. Everything is a horse race. And because America is extraordinarily wealthy, there is always good money to follow after bad. It will, I think, unfortunately take us all to the very brink. With any luck, I and everyone I know will be dead before that occurs.
Perhaps I have come full circle as I find myself thinking once again about Marshall Blonsky's dissection of American high culture - how it is a mere semiotic swamp of relativism. Even those so absolutely convinced that they operate on the basis of unchangeable 'values' often mistake the value of singular principles applied overbroadly. Be that as it may what is clear to me these days is that only subscribers, paying subscribers in information consumption markets are going to get their money's worth.
I'm not certain how this bodes for the nation. Because as loathe as I am to think about it at length, I know that there are not many levers of power available to the unsure grasp of the masses. Nor is our cheap and free information going to teach us how to reach and properly control them. The fate of the nation will be dependent on the ethics and fates of Caesar and Brutus and honorable men.
Think of it in terms of 'actionable information'. If every 5th grader in America was exposed to Julius Caesar, how many of them will make use of the wisdom it could impart? In the new world, only those 5th graders who *want* to see the play will, because the rest will have a choice - alternative literacy. You cannot force every 5th grader to watch, but the presumption of the old media is that they were owed that mass market share.
It might be disturbing to many that significant majorities are not attuned to the highest quality reporting that large media organizations could provide, but if you understand information theory the way I do you wouldn't be troubled. I think of it exactly like I think of the information about nuclear weapons. Like the fifth graders at the Shakespeare Festival, the information is out there to be had if you are persistent in pursuing it, but for that information to be actionable, requires no small effort on your part. The most valuable information is valuable to producers, not necessarily consumers. This is why high quality literacy doesn't apply to a consumer society. If snooty newspaper editors realized that, they wouldn't bleat so loudly. Or perhaps even more cynically, they do understand that which is why they sell classifieds and employ paparazzi with only a nod to serious journalism. Inventing CNN, Ted Turner had it right in the beginning. Now only Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal seem to have it right. They know that their audience is elite and will pay, and so that elite pays.
Again, I am using information theory. It takes energy to sustain knowledge and the discipline that makes that knowledge actionable. When the consumer can get a simulacrum of knowledge for free, the marginal utility of newsprint is not worth it, especially given the quality of information the web provides free. Note that all of this applies to higher education as well, except that higher education in America has priced itself out of reality. The bursting of that bubble is immanent. I'm attracted to spycraft - to information whose value is partly determined by the relative few people who know it.
We should take note of American suceptibility to markets. We are a market-oriented society. In that regard P.T. Barnum's aphorism applies. There is a sucker born every minute. But more aptly, if a fair price is whatever price the market will bear, such things apply to our literacy as well. A good education is what the market rewards whether or not that education includes anything of absolute value. A fair election is whatever the electorate will vote for. Everything is a horse race. And because America is extraordinarily wealthy, there is always good money to follow after bad. It will, I think, unfortunately take us all to the very brink. With any luck, I and everyone I know will be dead before that occurs.
Perhaps I have come full circle as I find myself thinking once again about Marshall Blonsky's dissection of American high culture - how it is a mere semiotic swamp of relativism. Even those so absolutely convinced that they operate on the basis of unchangeable 'values' often mistake the value of singular principles applied overbroadly. Be that as it may what is clear to me these days is that only subscribers, paying subscribers in information consumption markets are going to get their money's worth.
I'm not certain how this bodes for the nation. Because as loathe as I am to think about it at length, I know that there are not many levers of power available to the unsure grasp of the masses. Nor is our cheap and free information going to teach us how to reach and properly control them. The fate of the nation will be dependent on the ethics and fates of Caesar and Brutus and honorable men.
Recent Comments