fishers, surfers and casters

My cousing Angela sent me an email about my last post about Women in Islam. She acknowledged that the blog seemed to have been created in the immediate wake of the backlash against Danish media, following some mal-informed comments about Islam.

She also found on Google another blog called The True Religion, which shares stories about men, women and Christian leaders who have converted to Islam.

I’ve just arrived in Perth, Western Australia. Absolutely magnificent city.

I’m about to enter the National Conference of Deacons of the Uniting Church in Australia, which is for three days, followed by five days of a continuing education program. Many issues important to deacons will be discussed here, not least the ongoing conversations within our denomination regarding the nature of ordained a lay ministries and the need for restructure.

Deacons will also be learning from me (!!) about how to be a deacon in a youth agency, and the joining of Word and Deed in secular, multicultural and multi-faith settings. A bit of youth work will be thrown in. Fortunately, I’m a member of a panel of presenters so I don’t have to talk for too long.

I’ve just come across a new web log titled Women in Islam. It only started yesterday but there are already seven posts. The one post linked here is a story of an honest journey from non-practising Christianity to faithful living.

I have just come home from a two-day retreat for staff at Cutting Edge – UnitingCare. Our presenter was a life coach who led us through two full days of intellectual work-out. The theme was all about paradigms (the word he used that seemed to merely mean systems or cultures in the workplace) in which we work, how they frame our experiences, conceptions and possibilities, and how we can change paradigms that stifle us.

The question was asked, “What do you need to change a paradigm?” The presenter explained with an example, “The paradigm from “the world is flat” to “the world is round””. I explored this question together with three other staff members.

A list of things were discussed. The first was information. The paradigm shift started first of all by someone saying, “Hey, I reckon the world ain’t flat.”

The second response was about authority. For the information to be accepted by members of the old paradigm, it must come from an authorised source. It is the old paradigm which sets the authority, but the new paradigm may change the authority. To this one member of the foursome suggested, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, “Yes, if the information comes from the telly, then it’s true, isn’t it?”

It got me thinking about authority of information on the television (particularly television news). Why do people accept what they see on TV? Moreover, the internet turns the relationship of authority between viewer and source right over.

I’m going to offer some suggestions, as a discussion starter. The scope of my research on this question is very small, and I hope to offer some opinions by writers in the near future, but right now I’d like to know what you think about these things:

• The source of TV information is a culturally elite group of people.
  Television journalism is a profession requiring much training and experience.
• The sources of TV information are an economically elite group of people.
  The cost of airing information on television is impressively high, making what airs on television seemingly important.
• Both the cultural and economic elite actively prevent opposing points of view.
  The source’s authority is fuelled by a static television market over which the largest shareholders exerts large control over what is aired. Many news sources would openly invite comments on their stories, through telephone polls or associated internet guest books, yet these opinions would rarely be made available to watchers of the show, especially without the source’s own framing comments.
• Authority is continually maintained through ritual processes.
  Sound and vision are used to create a setting for the giving of information, which serve to actively promote the authority of the information’s presenters. Presenters sit behind a desk, supporting a laptop computer (which is never seen to be used), creating an altar space towards which viewers worship the truth of the news. Opening music signal a call for all in the household to gather round the television to receive their next sermon. Animation and film clips in opening and closing sequences serve to support notions that these television shows offer an authoritative view of the world that the laity need to stay in touch with the real world.

I’m sure you’re reading these points and thinking “well, duh…”, but I suggest them as framing points for discussing why, on the internet, authority is transferred from the source to the viewer. In this way, the internet poses a threat to the authority of the medium of television.

• The sources of internet information are an increasingly accessible group of people.
  Owners of web space, such as blogs or static sites, are likely to introduce their point of origin, points of view, and give access for direct communication with them (by email or comment pages). Information about how they see the world is given alongside personal information about the sources, including photographs, which actively serve to diminish the “distance” between the page writer and the page viewer.
• The processes of presenting information, of becoming an information source, on the internet is becoming available to an increasing group of people.
  Where only a few years ago one needed to be fairly well trained in web design and production to produce a page, now programs are readily available that can do the technical work, and are becoming increasingly user-friendly. Likewise the publication of information on the internet is becoming increasingly affordable. Blogger, for example, will provide you with web space if you haven’t bought your own. At least in the developed world, prices of web space are suffering increasing market pressure. And at least in the develop world, even the need for computers with ISP connections is less of a problem, as one can create a web page or a blog from a console at a public library.
• Sources of information actively invite opposing points of view.
  Popular blogs encourage discussion on the information presented. Those sites which exert moderation on comments will suffer public backlash on the blogs of those whose comments they reject. Bloggers invite other bloggers to write on particular issues at the same time, which I heard Steve Taylor call “grid-blogging”, offering readers a wide range of opinions on issues.
• Ritual processes are different on the internet than on television.
  There are many sites which use sound and vision (through, say, Flash plug-ins) to create spaces of ritual, yet these functions serve to increase the viewers participation in the internet space rather than be passive watchers.

I’m listening to old podcasts of the ABC Radio National’s Media Report which has many interviews about the internet and its effects on journalism and broadcasting. Check them out – particularly the first three made in December 2005.

The threat to television’s authority by the internet is clear, and it appears media owners actively work to control the internet in the way it already has TV control (such as buying out search engines, providing extensive web sites that join advertising with up-to-the-second news coverage e.g. ninemsn and MSNBC). (As an aside, I noticed that ninemsn is actually on my Microsoft dictionary, so the spell-checker accepts it automatically). Yet while the internet remains a network of connections, rather than a small number of broadcast points rippling out, more network points will be born each second than will be bought and sold.

I’m sure all y’all have heaps of comments and questions and discussions so bring them on, please. Let me learn from you guys.