Unchecked news is just as bad as media censorship
- Source: Global Times
- [00:29 February 21 2010]
- Comments
By Patrick Mattimore
Should a government manage the news? Most Americans would likely answer "No" while most Chi-nese would probably say "Yes."
But that doesn't necessarily mean that US news is all unfiltered and Chinese learn only what the government wants them to read or see.
In the US, many news stories rely on unnamed or anonymous sources, particularly stories about the government. The sources for those stories are frequently people who work for the government, at least some of whom are interested in manipulating the press. This is a form of press control, it is particularly odious when the public has no way to judge a source's veracity since the informant is known only to the reporter and his editor.
In China, some government agencies may ask newspapers to back off certain stories, but that doesn't mean the public won't find out about the stories anyway. For example, it's easy to locate movie star Zhang Ziyi's topless beach photos on the Internet, even though some government agencies tried to manage that story last year.
The irony for both countries is that the supposed freedom of the press in the US and the government oversight of the press in China may lead to opposite results.
Allowing journalists, bloggers, and anyone with access to a keyboard and the Internet to write anything they wish, the US government makes it harder for individuals to distinguish important news. Because the government makes no effort, or minimal efforts, to ensure standards, the public is fed large heapings of unfiltered nonsense. Having too many sources of information is as bad as having too few.
In his 2004 book, The Paradox of Choice, psychologist Barry Schwartz argues that having many options makes it more difficult for people to make choices. It's easier to pick a flavor of ice cream, in other words, if there are only a couple to choose from and not hundreds.
The expansion of the press into the blogosphere has also contributed to a deprofessionalization of the US media. Blogs are generally unedited, resulting in news being reported today as fact without sufficient background checks. Newspapers have migrated online, where literally thousands of contributing voices report whatever the writer feels like writing.
Historically, the US media ethical standards were promulgated by groups such as the Society of Professional Journalists and the American Society of News Editors. Typically, reporters went to graduate schools of journalism to learn to ply their trades.
Today, "citizen journalists," without the same pedigrees or strictures, have overrun the field.
The other side of the coin is not ideal, either. When a government limits individuals' access to information the government makes the forbidden information more attractive. Another psychologist, Robert Cialdini, calls this the principle of scarcity. Humans want those things that are hard to get even though there is logically no more reason to want a scarce item than a plentiful one.
Consider how sellers use this tactic by suggesting to prospective buyers that the sellers only have a certain number of items left or that the "special" price is available for a limited time only. By the same token, if a government wants to excite interest in a topic, one of the best ways to do that is to forbid its citizenry from learning about the topic.
Don't think about "pink elephants" and lurid pachyderms will be all that springs to mind.
One of the challenges for China and the US in the coming years will be to decide how those countries will prioritize the collection and dissemination of information.
What that might suggest is that the US government become more actively involved in managing at least some media sources in that country while China experiments with allowing some non-governmental media.
The author is a fellow at the Institute for Analytic Journalism. patrickmatti-more1@yahoo.com
