Because the Internet is so new we still don’t really understand what it is. We mistake it for a type of publishing or broadcasting, because that’s what we’re used to. So people complain that there’s a lot of rubbish online, or that it’s dominated by Americans, or that you can’t necessarily trust what you read on the web. Imagine trying to apply any of those criticisms to what you hear on the telephone. Of course you can’t ‘trust’ what people tell you on the web anymore than you can ‘trust’ what people tell you on megaphones, postcards or in restaurants. Working out the social politics of who you can trust and why is, quite literally, what a very large part of our brain has evolved to do. For some batty reason we turn off this natural scepticism when we see things in any medium which require a lot of work or resources to work in, or in which we can’t easily answer back - like newspapers, television or granite. Hence ‘carved in stone.’ What should concern us is not that we can’t take what we read on the internet on trust - of course you can’t, it’s just people talking - but that we ever got into the dangerous habit of believing what we read in the newspapers or saw on the TV - a mistake that no one who has met an actual journalist would ever make. One of the most important things you learn from the internet is that there is no ‘them’ out there. It’s just an awful lot of ‘us’.
4.30.07
John Creger | 26-Apr-07 at 1:54 pm | Permalink
I would say we don’t extend our trust to a lot of sources on the internet because they lack credibility. I have a proper knowledge of CNN, FOX, and US Today. I know their resources are credible not only because of the corporate name, but because of repetitive consistent info. Granted media outlets are biased one way or the other but we has humans ought to know this, thus read the papers, watch the tv stations, and listen to the radio to those that we agree with. I agree that time and effort have something to do with it too, because just any joe shmo can list things on the internet as facts- its the process at which he does it and extended credibility which he obtains that ought to gain trust.
Wes Gotschall | 26-Apr-07 at 2:04 pm | Permalink
I don’t trust any one source of news. I tend to look at a couple of different stories to see what facts they portray and put it together for myself. Sure, I’m still relying on these sources to form my opinion but I still think I’m not falling into believing the “them”. So many news programs on television or MSN.com or any other news source are biased based on political or commercial ties. NBC would never run a story that bashes General Electric or any of its subsidiaries because it is owned by GE. The news is unreliable to say the least, but its what we have to work with.
Kerry Phelan | 26-Apr-07 at 2:11 pm | Permalink
This is a very interesting and real issue. It is hard to trust anything anymore. It is said that the internet is filled with junk unreliable sources, but so is the news and magazines. How do we know whether or not a source is truly reliable. We are given so many different versions of different stories it’s hard to choose which is the most accurate. Its a big step to trust someone or something and it can be hard to do but we need the right information before we can do anything. Now a days finding that right information is even harder than trusting it.
Erica Yuenger | 26-Apr-07 at 5:06 pm | Permalink
As an aspiring journalist I have to say I resent the comment in this artcle about journalists. I think to say that nothing we see in the media is true is unfair. While there are occasional journalists (i.e. Jayson Blair) who give the profession a bad reputation, there are those who take their jobs as journalists seriously. A large part of the job is verification of the facts, and the easiest way to do that is to go directly to the source. Journalists simply report their findings after extensive fact-checking and corroborating the facts with various sources. There is also a Code of Ethics which journalists are supposed to follow. The problem with the internet is anyone can post a blog with their take on news events, with no obligation to any sort of Code of Ethics.
Ryan Riordan | 26-Apr-07 at 6:27 pm | Permalink
Every time I read one of these posts written about the internet it makes me think a bit more about what the Internet really is. Like Adams says, the internet is just a “whole lot of us.” I know that the internet is not something that anyone should completely trust or rely on. Afterall, the internet is a fabrication of humans, so by its nature it is never going to be perfect for anything. If we think about the internet in the same way we think about things in our external world, we might not be so against the internet for some of radical aspects. We need to know that nothing on the internet will be perfect and we must accept that. By accepting that i believe much of the debate about certain things on the internet will almost be set aside and not seen as much of a big deal at all.
Jeffery Villalobos | 26-Apr-07 at 8:21 pm | Permalink
I agree with this article but to an extent. I agree with it in the sense that most average Americans will take what they see on a new channel as the absolute truth because it is just easier for them to do so in their busy lives. I had to do a report for one of my classes in which I had to analyze two different news networks. This is different than just watching a news program. I really had to pay attention and pick out the differences between the two. It is so obvious when you are looking for the subtle things that different programs do. News networks are businesses. They serve their particular consumer base in order to get higher ratings. They show different commericals depending on their key demographics. I can go on and on. The point i am making here is you have to watch more than just one channel to get the whole story. People should do that on all matters. Believeing one source for all your information just does not make sense. Get all the information and make your own opinion about a matter.
Amanda Jakstas | 26-Apr-07 at 8:21 pm | Permalink
I also find this issue extremely intersting. What can we trust anymore? Back in the day before cell phones with cameras and easy access to the internet, the only news that was released was from credible sources like CNN, ABC, etc. Now we have the internet in the palm of our hands as well as other forms of technology. Now anyone can take a movie on their cell phone or take pictures and have them posted on the internet within seconds. The media is getting out of control, in my opinion. Too many people are allowed to contribute, making it that much harder to trust the sources.
Daniel Estrada | 26-Apr-07 at 8:24 pm | Permalink
I should note that I only copied a small portion of the article. If you know Douglas Adams, you know that it is worth reading the rest of the article.
Jaren Gaddi | 26-Apr-07 at 10:05 pm | Permalink
Interesting topic - CNN has an “I-Report” program in place, where people can send in their eyewitness accounts of news stories. Obviously, they filter the stories and show the good reports, but it kind of goes hand in hand with trying to pick apart what’s real and what’s not on the internet. At least if you watch the news on TV, you can get a cleaner, more accurate report on what’s going on with a situation rather than if you searched on the internet. A google or yahoo search can bring up many opinions or stories about a news event, but again, its a matter of knowing who to trust, where to get your information, and forming your own opinion. Don’t take everything for granted.
Stehpanie Prather | 27-Apr-07 at 2:20 pm | Permalink
In response to Jaren’s comment about citizen reporting on the Internet, I’m a journalism major and we discuss much of these issues in my journalism classes. So much can be fabricated on the internet, that trusting an average person brings a great amount of skepticism that might not have been there. For this reason I think the Internet can give the average person too much power in influencing public opinion if they were using false information.
Stehpanie Prather | 27-Apr-07 at 2:24 pm | Permalink
In response to Erica’s comment, it’s quite insulting to say that journalists are just like citizen journalists. Journalism is a trained profession that does require us to follow a certain code of ethics. Saying that we’re really all citizen journalists because the internet allows us to read other’s writing is like saying everyone is a physicican because there are a lot of books written about medicine. Journalists are trained to search for facts and their careers rely on their reputation. The average person has virtually nothing to lose for falsifying information.