Dom Post on Internet Publishing

The Dom Post reacts to Time Magazine choosing “you” as Man of the Year.

Overall it is a good balanced piece, but there is one part I want to debate:

It requires only a quick romp through the Internet to see that the shift of control of information has not always been accompanied by a shift of responsibility. Advocates of the freedom of the Internet are anxious to point out that it removes what they see as the restrictive selection practised by the mainstream media, providing the public with all the news and not just the news the media chooses to print or broadcast. They are less anxious to highlight that it also removes a vital filter between the hucksters, hoaxers and publicists, and the public. No responsible news organisation accepts everything it is given on faith, knowing that it will rightly be held accountable for what it produces, yet that is what the Internet invites those using it to do. The reality is that the Internet, like the printing press, is only a tool. What matters is the message, not the medium.

The Dom Post talks of responsible news organisations, but how about those not responsible? Does Truth count as responsible? Does News of the World? Does the National Enquirer?

Now the answer be they are trashy tabloids and no-one seriously takes them as credible. Well that may be true, but the same thing applies to Internet publishing. The low quality trashy sites don’t have the same credibility as other sites. Readers are adept at working this out.

The other major point is that blogs especially face far more scrutiny than most media organisations. Within minutes of a story being posted, people can read comments from those disagreeing. If facts are seriously wrong, this may be highlighted on a dozen other blogs. In fact even the media may hold blogs to account also.

I agree with the Dom Post that the message, not the medium, is what matters. But the implication that there is no accountability for Internet publishing is quite wrong.