[icernet] Internet Kills the Television Blahs

[Arul Selvan]

A few days after the start of the war, I was sitting in a hotel 
restaurant having breakfast. At night, the eatery was a sports bar. But 
that morning, fifteen television sets, some as large as five feet 
square, broadcast war coverage.

Over my eggs, toast, and coffee, I watched the last nights bombing 
raids, big red blooms of fireballs. Interspersed were animated graphics 
of military maneuvers and equipment, like a sophisticated, nihilistic 
video game.

As hard as I tried, I couldnt look away. Television is mesmeric, 
engaging, and according to scientific research, addictive. Last February 
in Scientific American, award-winning researchers Robert Kubey and 
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi presented their findings on television 
addiction. Its a term they reluctantly came to accept because the 
viewing patterns of Americans (who average 3+ hours per day) fit the 
classic definition. No shocker here: We feel relaxed while were channel 
surfing. But Kubey and Csikszentmihalyi were surprised that "the sense 
of relaxation ends when the set is turned off, but the feelings of 
passivity and lowered alertness continue." In other words, we end up 
feeling slodgy and powerless right after a big TV binge.

But online news consumers have found a very different  and highly 
active  way of getting their information. Some of the most 
sophisticated news consumers, including progressives worldwide, have 
become the "blog"-era equivalent of news editors. By both receiving and 
distributing information via email, they vote with the click of a mouse 
on what information matters.

"It's nice to have these `intelligent agents  my friends and list 
neighbors  passing along the worthiest columns and news stories," says 
musician and radio producer David Gans. He receives information via 
listservs, discussions boards, and the online community The Well, whose 
Media conference he hosts. Individuals like Gans, informed and 
discerning about what they send out, become hubs in this distributed 
information network.

Net use has grown exponentially since the first Gulf War  the 
"television war"  a decade ago. Says Australian writer Richard Evans, 
"I prefer [online news] to watching television as I have more control of 
the kinds of images and stories I read. I also use the Google news 
service as a way of getting a quick overview of a variety of sources." 
Studies also show that Americans find the web outlets of major media 
(like CNN.com) more trustworthy than their parents.

Print and online publications that make it easy for readers to forward 
material have seen a jump in traffic. The New York Times sends out 3.7 
million headline alerts each day. But their "Most Emailed Articles" 
feature  which allows online readers to see what other readers have 
forwarded  has come into its own. New York Times Digital spokesperson 
Christine Mohan says that in March, the highest-traffic month so far, 
the average number of articles emailed was about seventy-five thousand 
per day. But in the days preceding the war, readers emailed up to 
120,000 stories daily. "When you send something to your colleague, the 
person is much more likely to open it. Its that inherent trust," says 
Mohan.

Novelist Danzy Senna ("Caucasia") uses the New York Times system to 
email articles to friends and family. She also passes on alerts about 
upcoming peace marches and acts of civil disobedience. Judging by online 
outreach for recent peace rallies, the ability to customize and control 
the flow of information produces action as well as education. And 
alternative news sources may have benefited from the online news surge 
even more than major-media ones. In my admittedly unscientific survey of 
individuals who received and forwarded war-related news, most (including 
Senna) sent and received more independent than major-media coverage.

The downside? Not all information is credible. Web producer Emily Gertz 
finds some people on progressive listservs passing bad information on. 
"As part of harnessing the power of networked information," she says, 
"there needs to be a steady level of education about net resources and 
etiquette from those of us who've been online for a long time (in my 
case, over ten years)."

People who forward too much volume or too little of interest find people 
begging off their lists. And unique or "sticky" information, like Tamim 
Ansarys letter from Afghanistan last year, travels the world lightening 
quick, which opens the door for clever hoaxes.

The system is largely self-correcting, however  and growing. The only 
thing that could block news "intelligent agents" from their mission is 
the question of revenue. For now, most outlets dont charge for 
accessing or forwarding information, happy simply that theyre getting 
more eyeballs. In this world, readers and publishers share the burden of 
distribution. Online information fans have turned Fox Newss slogan on 
its ear, telling outlets "You Report, The World Decides."

Source:
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15625