The Scramble For News Is Getting Easier

I went onto Google this morning and decided to make a personalised home page. I created two tabs: one called news, the other called sport.

On the news tab, I tried to put as wider ranging content as I possibly could, in terms of covering as much of the planet as possible. It wasn't hard.

On this blog, three elements to world news are easily accessible down the left hand side: the purely Western viewpoint is supplied by the Washington Post; the BBC gives the moderate, impartial, Western stance; and Al Jazeera supplies the experienced coverage of the Middle East / Arabic world so lacking in Western news coverage.

Being "in the know" has always been a primal desire of Man. Back in the dawn of civilisation, Man did not need to know on a day-to-day basis what was going on, other than what immediately effected his dwelling and his source of food.

By the start of the last century, the newspaper (certainly in Great Britain and the United States) was king when it came to supplying news to the people. Since then, the mastheads of seemingly well established publications (the New York Herald, the Morning Herald &c.) have disappeared from newsstands, never to be seen again.

Television news soon came in, not long after radio broadcasts (from the Home Service here in Britain) meant citizens no longer had to wait for the next days paper to find out about world affairs. News reels meant citizens could visually comprehend the news. It became more real. Television news could soon be watched in the comfort of the living room, and at set times: 12:00, 18:00 and either 21:00 or 22:00.

But people still had to wait. The development of multi-channel television brought with it twenty-four hour news, whenever people wanted it. Not only was news now on-demand, but it was global. Fox News -- in the United Kingdom! BBC News 24 -- wherever you may be! Al Jazeera -- outside the Muslim sphere! And recently, Russia Today -- in English!

But the news was still mediated. The controller still decided what we saw and what we heard about. And to a certain extent, this still exists with the Internet, but to a lesser extent. The newspapers have gone 'digital'. They had to, or cease to exist. The editor is still in control, but the consumer has a choice of news sources like never before. A choice which can never matched by television. A choice which finally balances out the regulation of news sources.

This choice is compounded by what I am doing now. People can comment and have their say on topical issues. The comment page of the [London] Times still has a certain aura, a certain dignified respect, but now the ordinary citizen can write on his or her blog, can e-mail the websites and can text the twenty-four hour news channels.

Exactly how useful some of the content on the Internet is, is debatable. Mindless ranting on one blog about the turmoil in the Middle East is far less useful than the letter written to the editor of the Daily Telegraph by an aid worker who has spent 25 years in the Gaza Strip. But the ranting blog is still valuable; at least that person is actively thinking about current affairs issues and taking an interest.

There are more and more websites which let you choose your own content. The content you can choose usually repeats itself from site to site: The Washington Post, The NY Times, The BBC, Sky News, The Sydney Morning Herald, USA Today, La Gazetta Dello Sport, &c. &c. But this is good. It is easy for citizens to grow accustomed to a publication which originated on the other side of the world. I, for example, can now scan every major news publication in the world in seconds. I have greater freedom in what I read, and when.

And what also makes me smile is the fact that the full impact of the Internet is still yet to be felt. The Internet is a massive tool for democracy. The Internet makes segregated dictatorships unworkable in the twenty-first century. The Internet brings freedom to the most closed-off countries in the world.

Yours, wherever you may be,
Daniel C. Wright