The Effect of the Net on the Professional News Media: The Usenet News Collective - The Man-Computer News Symbiosis By Michael Hauben "The archdeacon contemplated the gigantic cathedral for a time in silence, then he sighed and stretched out his right hand towards the printed book lying open on his table and his left hand towards Notre-Dame, and he looked sadly from the book to the church: 'Alas,' he said, 'this will kill that..'" (Victor Hugo, _Notre Dame de Paris_, pg. 187) "This was the presentiment that as human ideas changed their form they would change their mode of expression, that the crucial idea of each generation would no longer be written in the same material or in the same way, that the book of stone, so solid and durable, would give way to the book of paper, which was more solid and durable still. Seen thus, the archdeacon's vague formula had a second meaning: it meant one art was going to dethrone another art. It meant: printing will kill architecture." (Hugo, pg. 189) I. Introduction ----------------- Will this kill that? Will the new on-line forms of discourse dethrone the traditional news media? The French writer Victor Hugo observed that the printed book rose to replace the cathedral as the conveyor of important ideas in the fifteenth century. Will Usenet News and other young on-line discussion forums develop to replace the current news media? Various people throughout society are currently discussing this question. Usenet News is a distributed worldwide discussion forum made up of thousands of discussion areas called newsgroups. Software called a newsreader is used to access the database of messages and responses which make up the bulk of Usenet's transported data. Access to this database is provided from either a local copy of the discussion newsgroups, or by using an Internet protocol called NNTP(1) to view and add to an external site. Because of the great amount of discourse, Usenet sites need to expire old postings of various vintage (sometimes a month, more often a week or two, but perhaps a few days) on a regular basis. This way, a static amount of disk space can be used to host the continuing dynamic conversations. Electronic mailing lists are also a popular way to host on-line discussions. (2) II. MEDIA-CRITICISM --------------------- The role of modern journalism is being reconsidered by journalists in a variety of ways. There are journalists and media critics, like the late Professor Christopher Lasch, who have challenged the fundamental premise of professional journalism. There are other journalists, like _Wall Street Journal_ reporter Jared Sandberg, who cover an on-line beat, and are learning quickly about the growing on-line public forum. These two approaches are beginning to converge in an interesting fashion. Media critics, like Christopher Lasch, have established a theoretical foundation upon which to think about the news media and challenge the current practice of this media. Lasch argued in "Journalism, Publicity, and the Lost Art of Argument": "What democracy requires is public debate, and not information. Of course, it needs information, too, but the kind of information it needs can be generated only by vigorous popular debate." (3) Lasch extended his argument to the press when he wrote: "From these considerations it follows the job of the press is to encourage debate, not to supply the public with information. But as things now stand the press generates information in abundance, and nobody pays any attention." (4) He continues to explain why more and more people are getting less and less interested in the press: "Much of the press ... now delivers an abundance of useless, indigestible information that nobody wants, most of which ends up as unread waste." (5) Reporters like Jared Sandberg, of the _Wall Street Journal_, recognize that more and more of the information which the public is interested in, is starting to come from people other than professional journalists. In an article about the April 1995 Oklahoma Federal building explosion, Sandberg writes: "In times of crisis, the Internet has become the medium of choice for users to learn more about breaking news, often faster than many news organizations can deliver it." (6) People curious and concerned about relatives and others present on the scene, turned to both live discussions on IRC (Internet Relay Chat) and to discussions on Usenet (alt.current-events.amfb-explosion) and elsewhere on-line to find out timely information about survivors and to discuss the questions raised by the event. Sandberg noted that many logged onto the Internet to get news from first hand observers rather than turning on the TV to CNN or comparable news sources. Journalists and media critics like Martha Fitzsimon and Lawrence T. McGill present a broader definition of media critics when they wrote: "Everyone who watches television, listens to a radio or reads ... pass judgment on what they see, hear or read. But such judgments, unlike those of professionals, are rarely heard." (7) These authors, acknowledging the public's discontent with the traditional forms of the media, go on to write that, "the evaluations of the media put forward by the public are grim and getting worse." (8) Other journalists have written about public criticism of the news media. Thomas Valovic recognizes some of the advantages inherent in the new on-line form of criticism. In his article, "Encounters On-Line", he says that unlike old criticism, the new type "fosters dialogue between reporters and readers." (9) He continues by saying this dialogue "can subject reporters to interrogations by experts that undermine journalists' claim to speak with authority." (10) Changes are imminent in the field of journalism, and these changes are apparent to some, but not all journalists and media critics. Tom Goldstein, Dean of University of California Berkeley Journalism School observed that change is occurring, but the results are not fully understood. (11) III. Comparison of Internet/Usenet to Journalists --------------------------------------------------- There are discussions on-line about the role of the press and the role of on-line discussion forums. The debate is active, and there are those who feel the print press is here to stay, and there are others who feel that interactive discussion forums are likely to replace the print news media. Those who argue for the dominance of the on-line media are very impassioned in their beliefs. Their comments are much more persuasive than those who say they want to keep newspapers handy to read over breakfast or on the train. In a message thread on a usenet newsgroup discussing the future of print journalism, Gloria Stern stated: "My experience is that I have garnered more information from the internet than I ever could from any newspaper. Topical or not, it has given me community that I never had before. I touch base with more informed kindred souls than any tonnage of paper could ever bring me." (12) Regularly, people are commenting on how they have stopped reading newspapers. Even those who continue to read print newspapers, note that Usenet is one of the important sources for their news: "I _do_ get the NYT every day, and the Post and the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal (along with about 100 other hardcopy publications), and I _still_ find usenet a valuable source of in-depth news reporting." (13) More and more people on Usenet News have announced their discontent with the traditional one-way media, often leading to their refusal to seriously read newspapers again. In a discussion about a Time Magazine article about the Internet and Usenet, Elizabeth Fischer broadly and metaphorically states her position, writing: "The point of the whole exercise is that for us, most of us, paper media is a dead issue (so to speak)." (14) In the same thread, another poster raised the challenge posed by the on-line media for reporters: "This writer believes that you (the traditional press) face the same challenge that the monks in the monastery faced when Gutenberg started printing Bibles." (15) Jim Zoes continues by describing why the new media represents such a formidable challenge: "Your top-down model of journalism allows traditional media to control the debate, and even if you provide opportunity for opposing views, the editor *always* had the last word. In the new paradigm, not only do you not necessarily have the last word, you no longer even control the flow of the debate." (16) He concludes with his understanding of the value of Usenet to society: "The growth and acceptance of email, coupled with discussion groups (Usenet) and mail lists provide for a "market place of ideas" hitherto not possible since perhaps the days of the classic Athenians." (17) Others present their views on a more personal level. One poster writes: "I will not purchase another issue of Newsweek. I won't even glance through their magazine if it's lying around now given what a shoddy job they did on that article." (18) Another explains: "My husband brought [the article] home...for me to read and [I] said, 'Where is that damn followup key? ARGH!' I've pretty much quit reading mainstream media except when someone puts something in front of me or I'm riding the bus to work...." (19) These responses are just some of the recent examples of people voicing their discontent with the professional news media. The on-line forum provides a public way of sharing this discontent with others. It is in sharing ideas and understandings with others who feel similarly that grassroots efforts begin in attempting to change society. While some have stopped reading the professional news media, others are interested in attempting to figure out how to influence the media to more accurately report the news. Many are critical of the news media's coverage of the Internet, and other events. People's interest in the popular press's coverage of the Internet stems from an interest in making sure the potential of the Internet stays unaltered by law makers and others who misunderstand the value of the Internet based on bad reporting. People's concern with the coverage of the Internet in the press comes from close and personal understandings of the topic. One poster expressing such feelings writes: "The net is a special problem for reporters, because bad reporting in other areas is protected by distance. If someone reports to the Times from Croatia, you're not going to have a better source unless you've been there (imagine how many people in that part of the world could correct the reports we read). All points of Usenet are equidistant from the user and the reporter -- we can check their accuracy at every move. And what do we notice? Not the parts that the reporter gets right, just the errors. And Usenet is such a complete culture that no reporter, absent some form of formal training or total immersion in the net, is going to get it all right." (20) Another on-line critic writes: "It's scary when you actually are familiar with what a journalist is writing about. Kinda punches a whole bunch of holes in the 'facts'. Unfortunately it's been going on for a looooooong time... we, the general viewing public, just aren't up to speed on the majority of issues. That whole 'faith in media' thing. Yick. I can't even trust the damn AP wire anymore after reading an enormous amount of total crap on it during the first few hours of the Oklahoma bombing." (21) One Netizen (22) responded that in Usenet's formation of a community, that community has the self-awareness to respond and reject an outside description of the Net. If the Net was just the telephone line and computer infrastructure making up a machine, that very machine couldn't object and scold journalists for describing it as a pornography press or a bomb-production press. Wesley Howard describes how such on-line commentary is having a healthy effect on the press: "The coverage has become more accurate and less sloppy in its coverage of the Net because it (the Net) has become more defined itself from a cultural point of view. Partly because of growth and partly because of what the media was saying fed debates and caused a firmer definition within itself. . . This does not mean the print media was in any way responsible for the Net's self definition, but was one influence of many." (23) Another person writing from Japan urged that Journalists should be more responsible when he wrote "all journalists should be forced to have an email address." He explained: "Journalists usually have a much bigger audience than their critics. I often feel a sense of helplessness in trying to counter the damage they cause when they abuse their privilege. Often it is impossible even to get the attention of the persons responsible for the lies and distortions." (24) IV. People as Critics: The Role the Net is Playing and Will Play in the Future: --------------------------------------------------------- People are excited, and I am not incorrect in stating this generalization. The various discussion forums connected to the global computer communications network (or the Net) are the prototype for a new public form of communication. This new form of human communication will either supplement the current forms of News or replace them. One person on a newsgroup stated it best, writing: "The real news is right here. And it can't get any newer because I watch it as it happens." (25) The very concept of news is being reinvented as people come to realize that they can provide the news about the environment they live in; that people can contribute their real-life conditions and this information proves worthwhile for others. The poster went on to write, "As other segments of society come on-line, we will have less and less need for some commercially-driven entity that gathers the news for me, filters it, and then delivers it to me, hoping fervently that I'll find enough of interest to keep paying for it." (26) This sentiment represents a fundamental challenge to the professional creation and dissemination of news. The on-line discussion forums allow open and free discourse. Individuals outside of the traditional power structures are finding a forum in which to contribute, where those contributions are welcomed. Dolores Dege spoke to this when she wrote: "The most important and eventually most powerful aspect of the net will be the effect(s) of having access to alternative viewpoints to the published and usually (although not always either intentionally or consciously) biased local news media. This access to differing 'truths' is similar to the communication revolution which occurred when the first printing presses made knowledge available to the common populace, instead of held in the tight fists of the clergy and ruling classes." (27) This change in who makes the news is also apparent to Keith Cowing: "How one becomes a 'provider' and 'receiver' of information is being totally revamped. The status quo hasn't quite noticed - yet - THIS is what is so interesting." (28) While this openness encourages different conspiracy theorists and crack-pots to write messages, their contributions are scrutinized as much as any other posting. This uncensored environment leads to a sorting out mis-truths from thoughtful convictions. Many people on-line keep their wits about them, and seek to refute half-truths and and lies. Tom Kimball wrote: "I have great respect for the usenet ideal of everyone having the chance to respond to the ideas of others and the resulting exchanges of information and clashes of ideas I think is of some value (despite the flame-war garbage that gets in the way)." (29) Another poster from Australia commented, "One of the good things about USEnet is the propensity of people to post refutations of false information that others have posted. Well, mostly: I still haven't heard the 'Green Golfball' joke and don't expect to in my lifetime." (30) V. Qualities of this new medium --------------------------------- The common assumption of Americanism is that the individual is in control and is the prime mover of this society. Others would say this is only a myth and that much of our society is in the control of people organized around the various large corporations that own so much of our society - whether those corporations are the media, manufacturers, etc. The global computer communications networks currently allow uncensored expression from the individual at a bottom rung of society. The grass-roots connection of people around the world and in local communities based on common interests is an important step in bringing people in more control over their lives. Lisa Pease wrote in alt.journalism: "There is nothing like finding a group of people who share your same interests and background knowledge. Some of my interests I didn't know one person in a hundred that shared - and now I've met many. What makes it a community is ultimately in-person meetings." (31) She continued on in her message to state why such connections and discussions are important: "The net ... requires no permissions, no groveling to authority, no editors to deal with - no one basically to say 'no don't say that.' As a result - far more has been said here publicly than has probably been said in a hundred years about issues that really matter - political prisoners, democratic uprisings, exposure of disinformation - THIS is what makes the net more valuable than any other news source." (32) Another poster's thoughts are similar on the power of the Internet to work in favor of the individual over the commercial conglomerates: "The internet is our last hope for a medium that will enable individuals to combat the overpowering influence of the commercial media to shape public opinion, voter attitudes, select candidates, influence legislation, etc..." (33) VI. The Pentium Story ----------------------- In thinking about the future, people are thoughtful as to what happens when the traditional media will come in contact with this new media. John Pike started a thread talking about content providers: "To me this is the really exciting opportunity for usenet, namely that the professional content providers will be directly confronted with and by their audience. The prevailing infostructure privileges certain individuals by virtue of institutional affiliation. But cyberspace is a far more meritocratic environment -- the free exchange of ideas can take place regardless of institutional affiliation." (34) Pike continues by arguing that on-line forums are becoming a place where "news" is both made and reported, and thus traditional sources are often scooped. He writes: "This has tremendously exciting possibilities for democratizing the infostructure, as the 'official' hardcopy implementations are increasingly lagging cyberspace in breaking news." (35) An example of news being made on-line was in how the computer chip manufacturer, Intel, was forced to remanufacturer faulty Pentium chips based on the on-line pressure and the effect of that pressure on computer manufacturers such as IBM and Gateway. These companies put pressure on Intel because of the discovery of problems with the Pentium by people using Usenet. The discussion on-line led to people becoming active in getting the manufacturers of their computers, and Intel to fix the problems. The _Wall Street Journal_ told some of the story in its article titled "On-Line Snits Fomenting Public Storms," by Bart Ziegler and Jared Sandberg. The authors commented: "Some industry insiders say that had the Pentium flub occurred five years ago, before the Internet got hot and the media caught on, Intel might have escaped a public flogging and avoided a costly recall." (36) Buried in the quote is the acknowledgment that the traditional press would not have caught the defect in the pentium chip, but that the on-line media forced the traditional media to respond. The original reporting about the problem was done in the Usenet newsgroup comp.sys.intel, and further on-line discussion took place in that newsgroup and other newsgroups and Internet mailing-lists. The _Wall Street Journal_ reporters recognized their debt to news that people were posting on-line to come up with a story which dealt with a major computer company and with the real world role that Usenet News played. In another article, _Wall Street Journal_ Reporter Fara Warner focused on the real impact of the on-line news on Intel. The article quoted a CEO of a consulting firm that "[Intel] offered consumers a promise of reliability and quality, and now that promise has been called into question." (37) The people who did this questioning were the users of the computers with the faulty chips. Communicating about the problem on-line, these users were able to have an impact not otherwise possible. Ziegler and Sandberg noted that the discussions were on-line rather than in "traditional public forums like trade journals, newspapers or the electronic media." (38) Again this shows that on-line users worked together to deal with this problem, instead of going to the forums traditionally associated with examining dissatisfaction with consumer goods. After all of the criticisms, Intel had to replace faulty chips in order to keep their reputation viable. The _Wall Street Journal_, _New York Times_ and other newspapers and magazines played second fiddle to what was happening on-line. In their article, Ziegler and Sandberg quote Dean Tom Goldstein: "It's absolutely changing how journalism is practiced in ways that aren't fully developed." (39) These journalists acknowledge that the field of Journalism is changing as a result of the existence of the on-line complaints. The on-line connection of people is forming a large and important social force. As a community where news is created, Usenet has been a hotbed of more than just technical developments. Other late breaking stories have included efforts by the Church of Scientology to suppress freedom of speech on-line. An Australian reporter, John Hilvert, commented on the value of being on-line: "It [Usenet] can be a great source of leads about the mood of the Net. The recent GIF-Unisys-Compuserve row and the Intel Pentium bug are examples of USENET taking an activist and educative role." (40) Hilvert, in his Usenet posting, warned about the authenticity of information available on-line: "However the risk is you can easily be spooked by stuff on the Net. Things have to be shaped, confirmed and tested off-line as well. One of the interesting side-effects of USENet is that we have to work even harder to get a good story because, there is not much value-added in just summarizing a USENet discussion." (41) Though, it is hard to rely on any single piece of information, Usenet is not about ideas in a vacuum. Usenet is about discussion and discourse. Any one idea is not helpful. However, this brings up the question of whether editors are needed to deal with the multiplicity of information. Another person on the Usenet newsgroup alt.internet.media-coverage spoke to the need to take the time to deal with the growing amount of information: "The difference being that for the first time in human history, the general populace has the ability to determine what it finds important, rather than relying on the whims of those who knew how to write, or controlled the printing presses. It means that we as individuals are going to have to deal with sifting through a lot of information on our own, but in the end I believe that we will all benefit from it." (42) This poster defines what he meant by the notion of the general populace and the notion of a popular press. The point is important as those who are on the Net make up but a small percentage of the total population of either the USA or the world. However, that on-line population of an estimated 27.5 million people(43) make up a significant body of people connecting to each other on-line. The fast rate of growth also makes one take note of the trends and developments. The poster writes: "By general populace, I mean those who can actually afford a computer, and a connection to the 'net, or have access to a public terminal. As computer prices go down, the amount of people who fit this description will increase. At any rate, comparing the 5-10 million people with USENET access, to the handful who control the mass media shows that even in a nascent stage, USENET is far more the 'people's voice' than any media conglomerate could ever be." (44) The comments from the last two people lead to the question of whether or not the new technologies are helping to evolve or help the human species to deal with the ever increasing amount of information. The topic of man-computer symbiosis has been spoken to before. (45) The on-line discussion forums are helpful intellectual exercises. It is healthy to think and to make active use of one's brain - and Usenet is conducive to thinking. It is not the answer to ask journalists to provide us with the answers, the objective truth of life. Even if someone's life is busy, what happens when they come to completely rely on other's opinions and summaries as their own? Following is a detailed message concerning one individual's model as to how Usenet is helping to create a mass community which works communally to aid the individual. In his serious post, Karl Krueger argues that Usenet News works via the active involvement and thought of each user. The Usenet software facilitates the creation of a community whose thought processes can accumulate and benefit the entire community. The creation of the book, and the printed book helped to increase the speed of the accumulation of ideas. Usenet News now speeds up that process to help accumulate the thoughts of the moment. The resulting discussion seen on Usenet could not have been produced beforehand as the work of one individual. The bias or point of the view of any one individual is no longer presented as the whole truth. Krueger writes in his message: "Over time, USENETters get better at being parts of the USENET matrix -- because their *own* condensations support USENET's, and this helps other users. In a way, USENET is a 'meta-symbiont' with each user -- the user is a part of USENET and benefits USENET (with a few exceptions...), and USENET includes the user and benefits him/her." (46) Krueger continues to discuss the role of experienced Usenet users. He writes: "As time increases normally, the experienced USENET user uses USENET to make himself more knowledgeable and successful. Experienced users also contribute back to USENET, primarily in the forms of conveying knowledge (answering questions, compiling FAQs), conveying experience (being part of the environment a newbie interacts with), and protecting USENET (upholding responsible and non-destructive use, canceling potentially damaging spam, fighting 'newsgroup invasions', etc.)." (47) As new users connect to Usenet, and learn from others, the Usenet Collective grows and becomes one person richer. Krueger continues: "Provided that all users are willing to spend the minimal amount of effort to gain some basic USENET experience then they can be added to this loop. In USENET, old users gain their benefits from other old users, while simultaneously bringing new users into the old-users group to gain benefits." (48) The collective body of people, assisted by the Usenet software, has grown larger than any individual newspaper. As people continue to connect to Usenet and other discussion forums, the collective global population will contribute back to the human community in this new form of news. VII. Journalists and the Internet ----------------------------------- Professional journalists are beginning to understand that the on-line discussion forums will change their field, though they do not fully understand what changes will happen. In posing the question: "What, if any effect, do Usenet News and mailing lists have on reporters and editors you are in contact with?", I received varying answers from several journalists. Some have stated that Usenet and mailing lists are valuable information and opinion gathering tools which also help them to get in touch with experts, while other are either timid about the new technology or did not want to bother with yet another reporting tool. Several of the reporters stated that they do not participate in any discussion forums per-se, but rather lurk in these areas and contact posters by e-mail who they feel will have valuable information for a story. The main concern was that the reporter might waste time on-line trying to get information when there would only be but a small amount worthwhile in a lot of waste. Lastly, one or two did not see any value in on-line discussion forums, and thus have stayed away from them after initial negative impressions. When I asked if any of these reporters sensed an outside pressure to get Internet accounts and connect to Usenet and mailing lists, I got several answers. Josh Quittner said the pressure came >from the publishing side where publishers are looking for the developments of new markets. John Verity and Lorraine Goods said editors are responding to the hype surrounding the Internet and want stories about it. Brock Meeks stated the pressure comes from reporters such as himself who have been on-line for some time and have beaten other reporters to stories because of the power of on-line communications. Again there was the answer that there is an understanding it is important to get on-line without understanding why, while others are saying there is no push to go on-line. Again on the question about whether its important to be connected on-line, some couldn't understand why, being they are already connected to the "experts" in their respective field, while others felt the speed of email helped to bring timely information in for the stories they were working on. Farhon Memon stated that today's on-line forums are similar to conferences because it makes contacting experts much easier both in terms of time and place. Lastly, when asked about the best forms for reader feedback, a number of the journalists stated that letters to the editor and op-ed pages were helpful. However, one reporter stated that letters to the editor were not particularly heeded. E-mail was named as the next great way for readers to send in commentary. Whether or not this commentary is listened to or not is another story. One reporter did suggest that the on-line criticism, correct or not, encourages journalists to do the best possible job. When it came down to the question of whether on-line discussion forums would ever replace newspapers, the journalists almost universally stated that each form has its own role to play. Josh Quittner didn't think traditional journalists would evolve to becoming on-line discussion leaders. This job might emerge, but not as an additional responsibility of the regular journalist. Maia Szalavitz responded: "The print media can't beat online stuff for interactivity; online stuff can't beat print journalism for organization, ease of portability and use at this point." (49) Lorraine Goods offered a similar analysis: "An online news outfit can obviously do things that print cannot. However, there are certain things you can do with a newspaper that you can't do on a computer (like read it on th subway on the way to work, or in the bathroom). Just as tv did not replace radio, computers will not replace newspapers. I do think, however, that the introduction of new media will have an effect on traditional media. What those effects will be, however, I don't know." (50) There is a growing trend of journalists who are coming on-line for various reasons. Coming on-line could mean one of several things. Some use the Net as a new information source, and some look for people to interview. Lastly, there are those who are actually joining the community or responding to their reading audience. There is a growing amount of journalist input in such newsgroups as alt.internet.media-coverage (51), alt.journalism.criticism, alt.news-media, and in forums on some of the commercial on-line services, on-line communities such as the Well, and other places. Reporters are entering the discussion and both asking for people's suggestions on how to better cover the internet and for remarks on their stories. Newspapers and magazines are developing on-line counterparts of their print editions (e.g.: San Jose Mercury News, Business Week) on commercial on-line services such as Prodigy and America On-Line, and are experimenting with new content differing from their print editions on the World Wide Web (WWW) (e.g.: HotWired, Time On-Line, NandoNet). These on-line offerings sometimes provide another interface between journalists and readers. Message areas or public discussion boards are offered along with e-mail addresses for letters to the editor and particular journalists. (52) VIII. Conclusion ------------------ Newspapers and magazines are a convenient form for dealing with information transfer. People have grown accustomed to reading newspapers and magazines wherever and whenever they please. People's main criticism is more over the content of the print news media than with the form. There is a significant criticism that the current news media does not allow for a dynamic response or follow-up to the articles in hand. One possible direction would be a move towards on-line distribution and home or on-site printing. This would allow for the convenience of the traditional newspaper and magazine form to be connected to the dynamic conversation that on-line netnews allows. The reader could choose at what point in the conversation or how much of the discussion to make a part of the printed form. This could be a temporary solution until the time of ubiquitous slate computers with mobile networks which would allow the combination of a light, easy to handle screen, with a continuous connection into the Internet from wherever. Newspapers could continue to provide entertainment in the form of cross-word puzzles, comics, classified ads, and entertainment sections (e.g.: entertainment, lifestyles, sports, fashion, gossip, reviews, coupons, etc). However, the real challenge comes in the field concerning the "news," information and newly breaking events from around the world. Citizen, or now Netizen reporters are challenging the premise that authoritative professional reporters are the only possible reporters of the news. The news of the day is biased and opinionated no matter how many claims for objectivity exist in the world of the reporter. In addition, the choice of what becomes news is clearly subjective. Now that more people are gaining a voice on the open public electronic discussion forums, previously unheard "news" is being made available. The current news reporting is not really reporting the news, rather it is reporting the news as decided by a certain set of economic interests. Todd Masco contrasts the two contending forms of the news media. He writes, "Free communication is essential to the proper functioning of an open, free society such as ours. In recent years, the functioning of this society has been impaired by the monolithic control of our means of communication and news gathering (through television and conglomerate-owned newspapers). This monolithic control allows issues to be talked about only really in terms that only the people who control the media and access to same can frame. . . USENET, and News in general, changes this: it allows real debate on issues, allowing perspectives from all sides to be seen." (53) Journalists may survive, but they will be secondary to the symbiosis that the combination of the Usenet Software and computers with the Usenet community produces. Karl Krueger observes how the Usenet Collective is evolving to join man and machine into a news gathering, sorting and disseminating body. He writes: "There is no need for Official Summarizers (aka journalists) on USENET, because everyone does it -- by crossposting, following-up, forwarding relevant articles to other places, maintaining FTP archives and WWW indexes of USENET articles (yes, FTP and WWW are Internet things, not USENET things -- but if USENET articles are stored in them, the metaphor extends)." (54) He continues: "Journalists will never replace software. The purpose of journalists is similar to scribes in medieval times:to provide an information service when there is insufficient technology or insufficient general skill at using it. I'm not insulting journalism; it is a respectable profession and useful. But you won't *need* a journalist when you have a good enough newsreader/browser and know how to use it." (55) These on-line commentators remind us of Victor Hugo's description of how the printed book grew up to replace the authority that architecture had held in earlier times. Hugo writes, "This was the presentiment that as human ideas changed their form they would change their mode of expression, that the crucial idea of each generation would no longer be written in the same material or in the same way, that the book of stone, so solid and durable, would give way to the book of paper, which was more solid and durable still." (56) Today, similarly, the need for a broader, and more cooperative gathering and reporting of the news has helped to create the new on-line media that is gradually overthrowing the traditional forms of journalism. Professional media critics writing in the Freedom Forum _Media Studies Journal_ acknowledge that on-line critics and news gatherers are presenting a challenge to the professional news media that can lead to their overthrow when they write: "News organizations can weather the blasts of professional media critics, but their credibility cannot survive if they lose the trust of the multitude of citizens critics throughout the United States." (57) As people come on-line, and realize the grass-roots power of becoming a Netizen media critic, the professional news media will be increasingly marginalized. May 8, 1995 END-NOTES ----------- 1) NNTP = Network News Transport Protocol. 2) Mailing lists are quicker to create and are the best way to start new topics of discussion when there are only a few known interested individuals. Often discussions start between individuals - which lead to the creation of mailing lists. Once the daily amount of messages connected to that mailing list grows large, people initiate the creation of a Usenet newsgroup. One fundamental difference between usenet newsgroups and mailing lists is mode of access. Mailing lists messages are sent to an individual's mailbox, burdening that person with the task of deleting or saving every single message. This can get unmanageable when the quantity of messages becomes too large. Usenet newsgroups exist separate from one's personal mailbox. So rather than requiring the individual to deal with every single message, it is up to that individual to decide when he or she wants to use their newsreader to access newsgroups. This way personal messages are kept separate from the less-personal discussion found on these discussion forums. 3) Christopher Lasch, "Journalism, Publicity, and the Lost Art of Argument", _Media Studies Journal_ Winter 1995, Vol 9 No 1, pg 81. 4) IBID. 5) IBID, pg. 91. 6) Jared Sandberg "Oklahoma City Blast Turns Users Onto Internet for Facts, Some Fiction", _Wall Street Journal_, April 20,1995, pg. A6. 7) Martha Fitzsimon and Lawrence T. McGill, "The Citizen as Media Critic", _Media Studies Journal_, Spring 1995, Vol 9 No 2, pg. 91. 8) IBID. 9) Thomas S Volovic, "Encounters On-Line", _Media Studies Journal_, Spring 1995, Vol 9 No 2, pg. 115. 10) IBID. 11) Bart Ziegler and Jared Sandberg, "On-Line Snits Fomenting Public Storms," _Wall Street Journal_, December 23, 1994. 12) Stern, Gloria (1995, April 7). "Re: Future of print journalism" in USENET Newsgroup: alt.journalism, Message-ID: <1995Apr7.214157.11293@lafn.org> 13) Pike, John (24 Apr 1995). "Re: Usenet's political power (was Re: Content Providers -- Professionals versus Amateurs on Usenet)" in USENET Newsgroup: alt.culture.usenet Message-ID: <3ngntr$giu@clarknet.clark.net> 14) Fischer, Elizabeth (1994, July 20). "Re: TIME Cover Story: pipeline to editors" in USENET Newsgroup: Alt.internet.media-coverage 15) Zoes, Jim (1994, July 22). "Re: TIME Cover Story: pipeline to editors" in USENET Newsgroup: alt.internet.media-coverage, Message-ID: <30nmf4$bgg@News1.mcs.com> 16) IBID. 17) IBID. 18) Stanton, Catherine (1994, July 21). " Re: TIME Cover Story: pipeline to editors" in USENET Newsgroup: alt.internet.media-coverage, Message-ID: <30ltmc$huu@rodan.UU.NET> 19) From: abbyfg@tezcat.com (Abby Franquemont-Guillory) Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage Subject: Re: TIME Cover Story: pipeline to editors Date: 22 Jul 1994 13:45:19 -0500 Message-ID: <30p43v$5o6@xochi.tezcat.com> 20) From: flixman@news.dorsai.org (The Nutty Professor) Subject: Re: Reporter Seeking Net-Abuse Comments Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 13:35:34 GMT alt.internet.media-coverage 21) Article: 4728 of alt.journalism.criticism From: mikez@cris.com (Mikez) Newsgroups: alt.journalism.criticism Subject: Re: Mass media exploiting 'cyberspace' for ratings ... Date: Tue, 25 Apr 95 03:58:55 GMT Message-ID: <3nhs1v$cds_002@news.cris.com> 22) Netizen = Net Citizen. See Michael Hauben, "The Net And the Netizens: The Impact the Net has on People's Lives" chapter 7 in M. Hauben and R. Hauben, "The Netizens and the Wonderful World of the Net: On the History and Impact of the Net." Available via the World Wide Web at http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/project_book.html 23) Article: 1193 of alt.internet.media-coverage From: caspian@digital.net (Wesley Howard) Subject: Re: Does Usenet have an effect on the print news media? Date: 8 Apr 1995 05:39:43 GMT Message-ID: <3m57iv$m90@ddi2.digital.net> 24) From: dehoog@st.rim.or.jp (John DeHoog) Newsgroups: alt.journalism Subject: Make journalists get an email address! Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 20:01:24 +0900 Message-ID: 25) 26) IBID. 27) Dege, Dee (1995, February 21). "Re: Impact of the Net on Society" [e-mail to M. Hauben], [Online]. Available e-mail: ddege@winternet.com 28) Article: 11322 of alt.culture.internet From: kcowing@aibs.org (Keith L. Cowing) Subject: Re: Content Providers -- Professionals versus Amateurs on Usenet Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 12:33:23 -0500 Message-ID: 29) Tom Kimball Subject: Usenet impact upon reading habits and skills Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 02:25:28 GMT Message-ID: <1993Aug26.022528.6376@europa.lonestar.org> 30) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: bill@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (William Logan Lee) Subject: Re: Is hobby computing dead? (was Creative Message-ID: <1993Apr6.121613.16236@ucc.su.OZ.AU> 31) Article: 15915 of alt.journalism From: lpease@netcom.com (Lisa Pease) Subject: Re: Future of print journalism Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 23:17:24 GMT 32) IBID. 33) Article: 10260 of alt.culture.internet From: normane814@aol.com (NormanE814) Newsgroups: alt.culture.internet Subject: Re: Impact of the Net on Society Date: 20 Mar 1995 21:05:54 -0500 Message-ID: <3klca2$ma1@newsbf02.news.aol.com> 34)Article: 10566 of alt.culture.usenet From: John Pike Subject: Content Providers -- Professionals versus Amateurs on Usenet Date: 17 Apr 1995 12:21:49 GMT Message-ID: <3mtmgt$56a@clarknet.clark.net> 35) IBID. 36) Bart Ziegler and Jared Sandberg, IBID. 37) Fara Warner, "Experts Surprised Intel Isn't Reaching Out To Consumers More", _Wall Street Journal_, December 14,1994 38) Bart Ziegler and Jared Sandberg, IBID. 39) IBID. 40) Article: 4015 of alt.amateur-comp From: hilvertj@ozemail.com.au (John Hilvert) Subject: Re: Does Usenet have an effect on the print news media? Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 03:40:57 GMT Message-ID: 41) IBID. 42) Article: 1408 of alt.internet.media-coverage From: miskat@iii1.iii.net (Miskatonic Gryn) Subject: Re: Cliff Stoll Date: 17 Apr 1995 15:31:22 -0400 Message-ID: <3mufmt$47n@iii1.iii.net> 43) Number of people accessiable via email was placed at 27.5 million as of October 1994 according to John Quarterman and MIDS at http://www.tic.com/mids/howbig.html 44) IBID of USENET message from miskat@iii1.iii.net (Miskatonic Gryn) 45) See John Kemeny's "Man and the Computer", J.C.R. Licklider's "Man Computer Symbiosis", Norbert Wiener's "God & Golem, Inc." 46) From: karl@plato.simons-rock.edu (Karl A. Krueger) Subject: Re: Special Issue of TIME: Welcome to Cyberspace Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 08:58:33 GMT alt.internet.media-coverage:6544 47) IBID. 48) IBID. 49) Szalavitz, Maia. (1995, April 18) "Re: Questions about the effect of Usenet on journalism" [e-mail to M. Hauben], [Online]. Available e-mail: maia@echonyc.com 50) Goods, Lorraine. (1995, April 23) "Questions about the effect of Usenet on journalism" [e-mail to M. Hauben], [Online]. Available e-mail: lg105@columbia.edu 51) While I was writing this paper, there was a debate on-line over moving discussion from alt.internet.media-coverage into a new newsgroup tentatively called talk.media.net-coverage. 52) Jennifer Wolff wrote an interesting article for Columbia Journalism Review entitled "Opening Up, OnLine: What Happens When the Public Comes At You From Cyberspace" in Nov/Dec 1994 Columbia Journalism Review. pg. 62 - 65 53) ny.general #2516 Newsgroups: news.future,comp.society.futures,ny.general From: cactus@clinton.com (L. Todd Masco) No Subject Line 54) Krueger, Usenet Post, IBID. 55) IBID. 56) Victor Hugo, _Notre Dame de Paris_, trans. by John Sturrock, Penguin Books London: 1978, pg. 189. 57) Fitzsimon and McGill, IBID. pg. 202 BIBLIOGRAPHY -------------- Hauben, Michael. "The Net And the Netizens: The Impact the Net has on People's Lives" chapter 7 in M. Hauben and R. Hauben, "The Netizens and the Wonderful World of the Net: On the History and Impact of the Net." Available via the World Wide Web at http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/project_book.html Hugo, Victor. _Notre Dame de Paris_, trans. by John Sturrock, Penguin Books London: 1978, pg. 189. Lasch, Christopher. "Journalism, Publicity, and the Lost Art of Argument". _Media Studies Journal_ Winter 1995, Vol 9 No 1, pg. 81 - 91. Sandberg, Jared. "Oklahoma City Blast Turns Users Onto Internet for Facts, Some Fiction". _Wall Street Journal_, April 20,1995, pg. A6. Fitzsimon, Martha and Lawrence T. McGill. "The Citizen as Media Critic". _Media Studies Journal_, Spring 1995, Vol 9 No 2, pg. 91 - 101. Volovic, Thomas S. "Encounters On-Line". _Media Studies Journal_, Spring 1995, Vol 9 No 2, pg. 113 - 121. Warner, Fara. "Experts Surprised Intel Isn't Reaching Out To Consumers More". _Wall Street Journal_, December 14,1994 Ziegler, Bart and Jared Sandberg. "On-Line Snits Fomenting Public Storms". _Wall Street Journal_, December 23, 1994. E-Mail Messages Dege, Dee (1995, February 21). "Re: Impact of the Net on Society" [e-mail to M. Hauben], [Online]. Available e-mail: ddege@winternet.com Szalavitz, Maia. (1995, April 18) "Re: Questions about the effect of Usenet on journalism" [e-mail to M. Hauben], [Online]. Available e-mail: maia@echonyc.com Goods, Lorraine. (1995, April 23) "Questions about the effect of Usenet on journalism" [e-mail to M. Hauben], [Online]. Available e-mail: lg105@columbia.edu Meeks, Brock N. (1995, April 17). "Questions about the effect of Usenet on Journalists" [e-mail to M. Hauben], [Online]. Available e-mail: brock@well.com Quittner, Joshua. (1995, April 17). "Re: Questions about the effect of Usenet on journalism" [e-mail to M. Hauben], [Online]. Available e-mail: quit@interramp.com Memon, Farhan. (1995, April 23). "Your questions" [E-Mail to M. Hauben], [Online]. Available e-mail: fm62@columbia.edu USENET Messages Stern, Gloria (1995, April 7). "Re: Future of print journalism" in USENET Newsgroup: alt.journalism, Message-ID: <1995Apr7.214157.11293@lafn.org> Pike, John (24 Apr 1995). "Re: Usenet's political power (was Re: Content Providers -- Professionals versus Amateurs on Usenet)" in USENET Newsgroup: alt.culture.usenet Message-ID: <3ngntr$giu@clarknet.clark.net> Fischer, Elizabeth (1994, July 20). "Re: TIME Cover Story: pipeline to editors" in USENET Newsgroup: Alt.internet.media-coverage Zoes, Jim (1994, July 22). "Re: TIME Cover Story: pipeline to editors" in USENET Newsgroup: alt.internet.media-coverage, Message-ID: <30nmf4$bgg@News1.mcs.com> Stanton, Catherine (1994, July 21). " Re: TIME Cover Story: pipeline to editors" in USENET Newsgroup: alt.internet.media-coverage, Message-ID: <30ltmc$huu@rodan.UU.NET> Abby Franquemont-Guillory Newsgroups: alt.internet.media-coverage Subject: Re: TIME Cover Story: pipeline to editors Date: 22 Jul 1994 13:45:19 -0500 Message-ID: <30p43v$5o6@xochi.tezcat.com> From: flixman@news.dorsai.org (The Nutty Professor) Subject: Re: Reporter Seeking Net-Abuse Comments Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Jan 1995 13:35:34 GMT alt.internet.media-coverage Article: 4728 of alt.journalism.criticism From: mikez@cris.com (Mikez) Newsgroups: alt.journalism.criticism Subject: Re: Mass media exploiting 'cyberspace' for ratings ... Date: Tue, 25 Apr 95 03:58:55 GMT Message-ID: <3nhs1v$cds_002@news.cris.com> Article: 1193 of alt.internet.media-coverage From: caspian@digital.net (Wesley Howard) Subject: Re: Does Usenet have an effect on the print news media? Date: 8 Apr 1995 05:39:43 GMT Message-ID: <3m57iv$m90@ddi2.digital.net> From: dehoog@st.rim.or.jp (John DeHoog) Newsgroups: alt.journalism Subject: Make journalists get an email address! Date: Fri, 21 Apr 1995 20:01:24 +0900 Message-ID: Article: 11322 of alt.culture.internet From: kcowing@aibs.org (Keith L. Cowing) Subject: Re: Content Providers -- Professionals versus Amateurs on Usenet Date: Mon, 17 Apr 1995 12:33:23 -0500 Message-ID: Tom Kimball Subject: Usenet impact upon reading habits and skills Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1993 02:25:28 GMT Message-ID: <1993Aug26.022528.6376@europa.lonestar.org> Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: bill@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (William Logan Lee) Subject: Re: Is hobby computing dead? (was Creative Message-ID: <1993Apr6.121613.16236@ucc.su.OZ.AU> Article: 15915 of alt.journalism From: lpease@netcom.com (Lisa Pease) Subject: Re: Future of print journalism Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 23:17:24 GMT Article: 10260 of alt.culture.internet From: normane814@aol.com (NormanE814) Newsgroups: alt.culture.internet Subject: Re: Impact of the Net on Society Date: 20 Mar 1995 21:05:54 -0500 Message-ID: <3klca2$ma1@newsbf02.news.aol.com> Article: 10566 of alt.culture.usenet From: John Pike Subject: Content Providers -- Professionals versus Amateurs on Usenet Date: 17 Apr 1995 12:21:49 GMT Message-ID: <3mtmgt$56a@clarknet.clark.net> Article: 4015 of alt.amateur-comp From: hilvertj@ozemail.com.au (John Hilvert) Subject: Re: Does Usenet have an effect on the print news media? Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 03:40:57 GMT Message-ID: Article: 1408 of alt.internet.media-coverage From: miskat@iii1.iii.net (Miskatonic Gryn) Subject: Re: Cliff Stoll Date: 17 Apr 1995 15:31:22 -0400 Message-ID: <3mufmt$47n@iii1.iii.net> From: karl@plato.simons-rock.edu (Karl A. Krueger) Subject: Re: Special Issue of TIME: Welcome to Cyberspace Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Mar 1995 08:58:33 GMT alt.internet.media-coverage:6544 ny.general #2516 Newsgroups: news.future,comp.society.futures,ny.general From: cactus@clinton.com (L. Todd Masco) No Subject Line