IP: From: "Brock N. Meeks" <brock () well com> on wacko Net stuff

[David Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

Dave,


Here's a story I filed for msnbc on whether the wacko Net stuff was
tainting legit news organizations:




Vince Foster and Hillary Clinton were agents of the Mossaud, selling U.S.
secrets to the Israelis and TWA flight 800 was downed by a U.S. naval
missile.  Such are the "news" stories that circulate in cyberspace, living a
mouse click away from stories published by the New York Times, the Wall
Street Journal and MSNBC, among others.


Is there a danger that the tabloid, wacko nature of these Net-promulgated
conspiracy stories somehow taints the legitimate news operations now
populating the Net?  To listen to some mainstream TV reports or read
articles in traditional newspapers, one might think so, says Paul McMasters,
the First Amendment Ombudsman for the Freedom Forum, a media organization.
"I think thats the perception oozing from misinformed and sometimes
overheated coverage by the mainstream press," he said.


Whenever a sensationalistic story breaks, and theres some link to the
Internet, such as the Heavens Gate cult tragedy, the press tends to go wild
and the Internet gets dragged along like some kind of unindicted
co-conspirator.  "The mainstream media is at risk, if its not careful, of
contributing to the credibility erosion" of Net based journalism, "unless
people doing the reporting know the Internet," McMasters said.


The whole issue of whether bizzaro stories floated on the Internet effect
peoples perception of legitimate news organizations publishing on-line "is
bogus," according to Jon Carroll, a columnist for the San Francisco
Chronicle and Net maven in his own right. The Internet is simply "another
medium carrying crapola and brilliance and facts and speculation all bundled
together, like television, like  newspapers, like anything," Carroll says.
"It is only because it is insufficiently understood that anyone even thinks
it's an issue."


The "misunderstanding" issue is a crucial one, according to Dan Kennedy,
media critic for the Boston Phoenix, who regularly reports on cyberspace
journalistic efforts.  Kennedy says that whats "really different" about
journalism in cyberspace is that there has been a "flattening" going on, in
that "it doesnt appear to the untrained eye that theres a difference between
really legitimate information sources and whacko sources."  This
"flattening" takes places, Kennedy says, because a phony news organization
can put out a polished product, with a professional, credible looking web
page design that rivals anything MSNBC, the New York Times or the Wall St.
Journal produces.  "The alternative, flaky news stuff, in the print world is
handed out on street corners by guys scratching themselves," Kennedy says,
"thats a big visual tip-off to someone that the source of the information
might not be credible thats missing in cyberspace."


And therein lies the rub.  Consumers of mainstream news, either on TV or in
print, have clues to help them filter whats legit and whats not, says Bob
Steele, director of the Ethics Program at the Poynter Institute, an
organization dedicated to the betterment of journalism.  "Theres always been
a challenge for the consumer to distinguish between news products when it
comes to information," Steele said, its not a challenge inherently unique to
the Internet.


Consumers have to distinguish between the Philadelphia Inquirer and the
National Inquirer," Steele says.  "We might think thats easy to do, but
theres a basic challenge for the consumer."  He points to the proliferation
infomercials proliferating on TV that masquerade as "news" programs as
another kind of challenge.   


People have to ask themselves what are the journalistic standards of
independence and accuracy and fairness and what is merely information being
put out using the standards "that are reflective of a personal point of view
or special interest," Steele says.  "If we translate some of that to the
Internet, were seeing an increasing sophistication in products sometimes
look like and maybe even smell like a traditional news product," he says.


Another problem that may hurt the credibility of on-line news organizations
is a lax attitude toward what links they associate with a certain story,
said Steele, who is right now drafting guidelines for how on-line
publications should handle links to other Web sites.  Linking to other sites
can be hazardous, Steele said, especially if those linked sites dont carry
content developed with the same journalistic standards and traditions.
Consumers, rightly or wrongly, can assume that because theres a credible
news organization has linked to a site that it is somehow "approved" by the
real news source.   So Steele is recommending that such links carry
prominent disclaimers, for example, whehter a site has a particular point of
view or if it carrys potentially objectionable material. 


To listen and read some reports of Internet use, one would think its
trafficked by idiots with the brains of a trout, willing to believe whatever
is painted onto their computer screen.   That perception couldnt be further
from the truth; people just arent that stupid.  Yes, conspiracies attract a
certain wacko crowd, but so do such publications carried by any well-stocked
news stand.   


When the members of the Heavens Gate cult tried to proselytize the Net with
their "join us, the end is near" screed, uploaded to dozens of newsgroups,
they were soundly hammered as jokesters and fakes by regular readers of
those newsgroups, according to the archival postings reviewed using the Deja
News search engine.


"The transmission medium doesnt automatically make the content suspect,"
said John Ross, a member of the WELL, an on-line conferencing system, where
this question of Internet credibility was proffered.  Ross says that
tabloids or bombastic talk shows arent credible news sources for him;
however, he does believe reports issued by the Associated Press and the
British Broadcasting Company, "based on their past performance."  Bottom
line for Ross is that he applies the same kind of "filters" to "online
journalism" that he applies to any other kind, which are based on a
relationship with certain news organizations and the reputation theyve
developed over time.


Another WELL member, Josh Gordon puts a sharp edge on the question, by
answering with his own questions:  "Does the existence of supermarket
tabloids undermine the credibility of the New York Times? Does the existence
of Chariots of the Gods undermine the credibility of  Stephen Hawking?"  The
point, Gordon says, is that "the only reason there's any issue here at all
is because the Web is new."  


Internet journalism is new, but it isnt tainted the wacko stuff, says Kevin
Kelly, executive editor of Wired magazine, instead it "illuminates the way
the on-line stuff is different" in that the Net community "is learning how
to evaluate the kind of journalism that happens on the Net."  Wireds on-line
counterpart, HotWired, launched its own Net-based news service, Wired News,
this year, which has gone begging for credibility.   The service has
surprised early naysayers with its top notch reporting on cyberspace issues
and is now carried by the Reuters news service, as well.


Net journalism is "similar to, but different from" traditional journalism,
Kelly says.  Print has the "benefits" of being fixed, vetted and processed,
things he also says can be drawbacks but are things that Net journalism can
leap frog.   "Stuff on the web is less processed, more immediate it feeds
marginal ideas," Kelly says, "which is a strength and weakness."  Online
journalism "tends to be conductive of conspiracy rather than propaganda," he
says, "with some quality of the oral culture, but its recorded."


Kelly says consumers of on-line journalism will have to learn to distinguish
how its different from traditional journalism, just as theyve developed
tools for discerning the differences between print and broadcast journalism,
"you may have to be more skeptical about online news sources," he says.  "To
believe that online journalism will act exactly as print journalism is to
risk getting caught in the Pierre Salinger Effect," he said, a reference to
how Salinger got sucked into believing that TWA 800 was downed by a U.S.
naval missile, based on a bogus online "news" report that claimed to have
documented the missile attack.   


Is on-line news tainted by news of the bizaaro?  Hardly.  If anything, it
may simply require a more involved reader, one with a skeptical eye, that
becomes engaged as an active participant with the news source.  And thats
what any editor wants, an active an informed readership that keeps coming
back.  


Bottom line, says the Poynter Institutes Steele, is that consumers "have a
responsibility to be wary" about their news sources.