Technology and Dissemination

I have often worried about monopolies on information. If one corporation controls what people read, hear and watch, it can affectively control what people know and maybe even how people think. Journalists began expressing this concern as more and more cities lost competing newspapers. It came about again with the Telecommunication Acts when corporations began controlling multiple forms of media in a single city.

High speed Internet, in theory, should rest my troubled mind. Today, Americans can compare multiple news sources. The New York Times’ version of the truth can be checked against a U.S. government website, which can be compared to reports from television stations abroad. Information flows unrestrained and freely across different media, corporations, cities, and countries. This technological development is nothing short of a democratic necessity today.

Before I sing praise and glory to online journalism, I must point out a serious flaw: it is a medium for the middle class and elite.

According to 2003 U.S. Census data, only 54.7 percent of American households had Internet access at home. Unsurprisingly, the relationship between Internet access and household income was inversely correlated. A staggering 92 percent of households making $100,000 or more had Internet access, while only 41 percent of households making less than $25,000 a year had access.

If newspapers are attempting to follow the money in America, they would be wise to focus resources on their websites and online reports. Corporations could even be advised to hurry along the seemingly inevitable deaths of slower, costlier and less interactive print media. However, if there are CEO’s out there who believe in informing the masses and journalism for democracy, perhaps they find this new emphasis on technology in the newsroom slightly bothersome.

The emergence of the penny press in the 1830’s was another type of information revolution. Average American’s could now afford to read about the political and economic happenings in their cities. Moreover, these papers were written in a way that the average man could understand. While the content strayed towards entertainment and sensationalism, the ideal of news for the masses was there. Technology has seemingly outgrown the desire to inform the masses that was present with Gutenberg’s invention and golden days of newspapers.

Where the fine line between elite interests or financial success and serving the greater good falls is hazy at best. The amount and depth of information on the Internet is staggering and inspiring for those who seek to inform. It takes very little to get swept away in enthusiasm for the endless possibilities of technology. The simple invent of search engines and archives have changed journalism for the better, adding background and context to stories, which were once ephemeral. Clearly the ability to read the same story from five different reliable newspapers with the click of a mouse and with no additional cost (aside from computer and access), is serving democracy better.

Yes, the Internet serves people well. Except for, of course, the 45.3 percent of Americans who don’t have Internet access at home. To be honest, I couldn’t find statistics on how many of the unconnected individuals get Internet access at work or at local libraries. But the simple fact remains, that an informed public is key to democracy, and online journalism simply fails to inform the masses.

A middle ground must be found between rushing feet first into the best and most expensive media and providing free newspapers on every street corner or every doorstep in low-income neighborhoods.