Tracing the Arc of Digital Information Overload

At the advent of the Internet, when legacy print, radio and television providers had a tight grip on news distribution, there were two popular memes. The first was that “information wants to be free.” The second was that the Internet was going to level the playing field so that “anyone can be a publisher.”

Let’s take them one at a time. First, being inanimate objects, information can’t want anything. The reality was that many people wanted information to be free. And to a large extent, they got their wish. I’ve always thought that being able to research practically any subject for business, education or personal needs by tapping on a keyboard is one of the miracles of our age.

So how is that “anyone can be a publisher” thing working out? Not very well at all.

While most people might agree with this assessment based purely on what they encounter every day on (the inappropriately named) social media, the Internet and its 24-hour fire hose of information has changed the news business forever. 

First, upstarts like Craigslist upended the newspaper financial model by decimating the classified ads business. When readers began to migrate to digital platforms, there was no commensurate flow of advertising dollars. (Even if there had been, a significant chunk of it would have ended up in the pockets of digital middlemen.)

Less obvious but equally important, the Internet has robbed major news providers of the leverage they had long enjoyed over, to cite one example, politicians. Putting radio and TV aside for a moment, back in the day, major national and local newspapers were the primary gatekeepers of news. They could and did say to political candidates, “Yes, we got the latest release you faxed us saying how great you are. But until you come in for an interview or hold a news conference to answer questions, your releases are going into the trash.”

That is no longer the case. If (okay, when) Donald Trump wants to communicate something, he’s got more than 50 million followers on Twitter alone. As of August 2018, the New York Times had a total of 3.8 million subscribers. What celebrity, company or politician needs to rely on the Times to disseminate their news when there’s BuzzFeed and innumerable other publishers champing at the bit for constant content?

Long before the Internet became pervasive, TV news had largely thrown in the towel on maintaining costly investments in far-flung journalistic operations. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, major TV networks (not the reporters therein) decided to cut costs by closing foreign bureaus because, without a Cold War, what was there to cover? Now it’s easier and cheaper to report on what’s trending on social media than it is to main lots of skilled TV journalists on the ground in the United States. Besides, “shocking video!” culled from social media is free to both viewers and news organizations. (You witness it every night if you watch network TV news.)

So now we’ve got lots and lots of digital information—much of it salacious and completely gratuitous, particularly on social media. And, yes, anyone can be a “publisher,” but without having to worry about the rigorous standards to which all legacy providers had hewed. Like being held accountable for publishing falsehoods, or worse, committing libel. With a deadline every minute and clicks at stake, many legitimate providers find themselves having to chase the same news ambulances regardless of whether the occupant was the victim of a terrorist attack or simply had too much to drink at the local bar. 

At the risk of being a pessimist, I don’t think our federal government or the Internet behemoths that fuel social media are going to completely clean things up anytime soon, if ever. And way too many people get their news on social media because, hey, it’s free and easy. This is where the traditional value exchange has become dysfunctional. Not enough people are willing or able to pay, say, for the Times and the Journal, to gain a left-right perspective, plus their local newspaper. 

My advice: unless you are retired and have absolutely nothing to do all day, try to spend five minutes or less on social media. Be assured that if you don’t see that viral video about the idiot in (pick a state) who tied a firecracker to his dog’s tail, your life can and will go on in a normal fashion. It happened all the time before the Internet. You just didn’t know about it.

As for news, there is not now nor will there ever be a law requiring people to pay for the quality stuff, of which the Times and Journal are but two good examples. And given the fractious nature of our politics, this reality is troublesome indeed.