Design Thoughts

This morning, I came across an interesting dialogue (granted, which dates back to September of this year) on The Mark which reflects on the changing nature of journalism & social media between two media figures, David Eaves and Michael Valpy. In short, Valpy wrote a piece in the Globe and Mail (only available by signing up as a GlobePlus member) which called out the rise of social media and the subsequent decline of the mainstream media as indicative of a fracturing of a national consciousness and a detachment of Canadians from their country, both as a result of increasingly notable divisions in society as well as through a loss of the grand narratives of mass media. Eaves quickly responded by pointing out that social media allows for great public discourse and discussion, and that the forced adoption of one perspective through the mass media did not breed cohesion, but rather discontent. While I don’t fully agree with Eaves’ response to Valpy’s article, I certainly feel that there’s an element of truth to both, as there’s as much a need for traditional journalism as there is a need for new journalism and participatory media.

To put it bluntly, the rise of social media did not cause the decline of traditional journalism. Readership numbers are down and advertising dollars are disappearing not because people can put their two cents worth in, but because so much of newspaper’s traditional strength — namely, news delivery — is immediately accessible online. Why would I pay for a newspaper to read yesterday’s news when I can read about it as it happens online? The unique benefit of newspapers, of course, is in adding insight and depth of knowledge through editorial coverage tailored to fit a particular market, place or people, but when half of the medium’s traditional strength is becoming increasingly marginalized, it’s hard not to be concerned. However easy it is to blame the new kid on the block, that approach is simply not true.

The rise over the past decade of social media and the participatory internet fills a niche market we didn’t know we needed until we had it, namely by giving us the tools to continue doing what we always did, but on a much larger scale with a much larger audience: talk about stuff.  Social media gives us — the people — the chance to ask something back about the news, culture and politics of a country, province, city or region, on a scale which might affect change. When we were all huddled around the water cooler discussing the same topics from the same sources, our viewpoints mattered to a select few people, and any reasonable engine for change was immediately stymied by this limited audience. Now that we can ask those same questions and pronounce those same viewpoints on a limitless scale, the opportunity is ripe for real change to happen when enough people of a certain perspective band together. Theoretically we’re more engaged in civic affairs now than ever before.

The Mark itself is a wonderful testament to this new poer. Before, outside of a few syndicated columns and bit pieces dotted throughout the country, there were few avenues for individuals of intelligence and insight get their voices heard. The giants of the journalism industry became veritable gods of knowledge — with good reason — but the thousands of other qualified individuals with little room to be heard now have a platform where they can actively push their own perspectives and agendas. In this case, nothing has changed in the transition of daily news from traditional media to new media: national discourses are still framed by the opinions of those participating in it. Of course, people will more often than not search out those whose perspectives they respect and admire, but that was always the case, based on the slant of the newspaper you chose. The large number of people reading newspapers back then managed to retain a degree of objectivity regardless of the conservative or liberal slants of the papers they read, and far from being unique to traditional journalism, it’s a staple of human beings which will only continue in the “new” journalism.

The sheer number of those participating in a national discourse, at least theoretically, is many times the number of years past. The assertion that this marks the fragmentation of a national cohesiveness is tempting, but flawed, as more viewpoints on a single topic arguably contributes more to a collective sense of knowledge and participation than the widespread adoption of a few viewpoints. Social media isn’t replacing news, it’s complementing it. National and regional bodies of journalism will still shape the national consciousness, but not through the dictation of a single viewpoint, but by providing the context through which a myriad of other viewpoints can pitch in with their own experiences. Small media allows the people an avenue to get heard beyond the water cooler, and the greater the number of perspectives pitched into a conversation, the greater the potential for a true sense of inclusive understanding to come as a result of it, and as a result, a greater sense of unity and togetherness.

At this point, the debate is mostly theoretical; the vast majority of Canadians, I would imagine, check the news online, perhaps read a couple articles a week, and then go about their busy lives working all week, taking kids to soccer practice, going out to movies and spending Saturday nights watching hockey. However, the platform has been established for those previously invisible to engage in a discourse at any level, from the microscopic to the national, in ways never before possible for all but a few particularly charismatic and engaging figures. It’s not a sea change in media so much as it is an evolution in media. Radio was the first sign of the democratization of the press from out of the hands of the printers; television was where it really exploded into the hands of the many to shape a discourse; and finally, the participatory internet marks the true democratization of mass media at the hands of the people. While many won’t take advantage of this opportunity, and there will always be a need for unified and large-scale bodies of journalism, the potential has never been greater for real change to be affected by engaging in a pertinent, real and wide-reaching conversation.