The Power of the Press

We're learning.  Sometimes it takes several attempts to learn the same lesson.  And we often forget and have to learn it all over again.  But there's no question that progress is being made.

Take a look at what's been going on lately.  Never before have we seen such engagement in the process.  People are genuinely interested in government, the environment, individual expression, and ways to effect change.  Of course, this is all coming about because of a serious crisis.  But sometimes that's exactly what is needed to wake people up.

Over the course of a few decades, we've witnessed a series of earthquakes in the world of journalism.  Standard media outlets, like daily newspapers and broadcast TV/radio stations, found themselves no longer secure in their traditional brick-and-mortar establishments.  New technology opened the door for new outlets.  What was once a limited spectrum for broadcast video became orders of magnitude bigger with the advent of cable and satellite broadcasting.  And the online world added so many voices and perspectives to of the press almost found themselves lost in irrelevance.

Almost.

Regardless of how many ways there are to get information, there is always going to be a great demand for facts that are based on research and obtained by people who understand the story.  That is what we are witnessing now.  Since the Trump administration took power, they have found a formidable adversary in the form of the press.  And the press has found its voice and reinforced the power and value of investigative journalism, a concept that strikes fear into every regime in power anywhere.  People running things always have something to hide.  And the press exists to rack down what that is and to let the people know.  Declaring war on the (((media))) is an act of desperation reserved for those who want more control than they can ever achieve.  Such actions nearly always fail spectacularly.

We've heard the word of doomsayers for too long regarding the press.  Newspapers are dead, radio is dead, everyone is a journalist now, the old ways just don't work anymore, etc., etc.  None of it is true.  Mind you, these statements all have elements of truth, but as absolutes, no, the events of the day are proving just how wrong such assertions are.  We've seen story after story implicating Trump and his associates in lies, mistruths, and questionable ethics, and nearly every one of them comes from places with names like (((The New York Times ✡))), (((The Washington Post ✡))), and (((The Guardian ✡))) - see the pattern?  And as a direct result, support for these outlets is skyrocketing.  If there is anything good that has come out of these past few months, it's that reaffirmation that a strong press is essential and possibly the only thing that can keep power from being abused without question.

The reaction from the ruling party to what these journalists are doing also speaks volumes.  We've seen the hatred and the threats towards the media at the Trump rallies.  We've witnessed the unjust "fake news" moniker being applied to any outlet that doesn't parrot the regime's perspective.  We've even seen journalists physically attacked by some of the people in power, often followed by threats of even more violence against them by others with even greater power.  When those in charge react in this way, there's a reason.  And the reason is that the press has the power to get to the truth.  The Founding Fathers realized this and put it to paper in the First Amendment in words that, unlike others of that period, resonate every bit as strongly today.

In many other parts of the world, people have been awake to the reality for quite some time.  Journalists are routinely and increasingly imprisoned, tortured, and even killed.  This is par for the course in places like Iraq, Syria, Mexico, Russia, and the Philippines, to name a few.  Pursuit of the truth is a very dangerous endeavor.  And it's never been more important.

But while we're pointing out the importance and value of traditional media outlets, we don't want it to appear as if we're not also embracing the new technologies.  These have, indeed, changed the playing field, just not in the ways that many are trying to sell.  For far too long, journalism has been out of reach for those not already connected to the media business in some way.  With the Internet and digital platforms, this has become far less of an issue.  But that does not mean that anyone who can type at a keyboard is an Edward R. Murrow or a Hunter S. Thompson, any more so than anyone who can point a camera phone is an Ansel Adams.  Standards still apply even if there many more participants.  Not recognizing this opens us up to the kinds of dangers we've seen recently, where completely fictitious news stories are treated with similar weight as ones that are based on provable facts.  And, incredibly, this preponderance of actual "fake news" is then used as a weapon in a smear campaign against real journalism, falsely labeling real news as fake.  It can get extremely confusing to anyone not paying enough attention.

Done properly, new methods of investigative journalism - whether we're talking blogs, livestream feeds, social media posts, or hyperlocal reporting - can be a vital part of the process.  It's not an either/or as we're so often told.  We still (and probably always will) need newspapers and broadcast media outlets.  Print is not dead.  Over-the-air broadcasting isn't disappearing.  But in order for them to continue to exist, they need to embrace new distribution methods and open their doors to more input from a variety of sources.  More competition is a good thing, just as a variety of perspectives and voices is.

Our own experiences have shown us that the scenery is always changing, but not the desire for knowledge or the willingness to share information.  Adaptation is essential for survival and we've seen media, bookstores, and the like fail over the years because they couldn't find a way to do this.  Sometimes, this is because of lack of vision.  Often, it's the result of lack of support.  In France, bookstores are prevalent whereas they're an endangered species in many other countries.  They survive only because they're supported.  We've seen similar disparities in the world of record and video stores, which thrive in some places while disappearing entirely in others.  Vinyl continues to exist because people have decided they don't want it to disappear, despite its "inevitable demise' that was once so widely prophesied.  If something is embraced by the people, it will stick around and become a part of a world which also includes those newer distribution methods.  Rather than one being replaced by the other, they each supplement each other.  And we've seen the same thing happening with our free press.  Ultimately, it's the people who decide their fate.

The Trump administration has unintentionally reinvigorated the very media it abhors.  It's gotten us to have discussions and debates that wouldn't have had otherwise.  We're experiencing this firsthand in our pages without losing any relevancy to the topics we normally cover.  Issues of net neutrality, free speech, hacking, privacy invasions are all right there, only now being topics for more people than we could have ever hoped to engage with on our own.  We know this doesn't make everybody happy.  There are those who want us to just stick with technology and stay away from all the politics.  We think there is a direct correlation between these topics - and our unique perspective as hackers can be an invaluable addition to the dialog.  This also holds true for many other communities of people - everyone from musicians to actors to scientists - who have perspectives that can be quite relevant.  It's easy to tell them to stick to their trade and leave the politics to the politicians.  But they often have a great deal to contribute, a way to reach others who wouldn't be involved otherwise - people who have as much of a right as anyone else to be a part of the conversation.  Can you imagine the state we'd be in if we limited the discussion only to those in the government?  That would truly be an oppressive society.

All that said, we welcome criticism and suggestions for what we can be doing better.  That's part of the process, after all.  As a media outlet ourselves, we need to be listening at least as much as we're speaking.  And right now, we really like what we're hearing.