The news media are changing radically today in ways that differ substantially from traditional media. Traditional media involve deadlines and top-down reporting. They are expensive and so far, profitable. New media involve new technology, are 24/7 interactive, inexpensive, and in the case of online news medias mostly unprofitable. New media are collaborative. Professionals and amateurs are working together, crossing boundaries to share facts, questions, answers, ideas, and perspectives. What some call 'networked journalism' is raising many ethical issues. It also presents us with paradoxes. Different viewpoints, different languages, cultures, values and goals are encountered whenever we cross boundaries. In this intervention I want to stress the urgency of giving a high priority to media literacy in the light of the rise of networked journalism.
The Internet and blogs mobile telephones, web sites, and caber communities, represent a huge change for the media. The media operate today in a complex world in which the perception is that the risk of insecurity of mind or body is high and trust in authoritative viewpoints is low. But when we think about new media it's easy to forget about mundane, familiar experiences in near and distant places. New media allow for, and encourage, boundary crossing on a scale not possible until recently. This can be disorienting in a huge variety of ways. Networked journalism contains the seeds for the possibility for understanding difference, but it also heightens the possibility of misunderstanding.
Networked journalism brings decentralized decision making, non- hierarchical structures, and diversity, face-to-face with the traditional practices of journalism. The impact of that confrontation is profound for the media, and it is even more profound for us as human beings. Border crossing is uncomfortable because it brings us into confrontation with others in ways that can be resolved and understood only through persistent dialogue. The responsibility of the media then is to support and encourage that dialogue in all ethical way.
The traditional news media provide a good platform for public debate. But this platform has limited space for openness and innovation. The status quo is not an option because of changing technology and changes in social and political circumstances. It is, of course, impossible to generalist globally about this. We live in a period of unsurpassed access to information and online debate, even though it is uneven. Even where it works, however the liberal mainstream news media are severely limited. They are self- contained, self-referential, and often elitist rarely crossing difficult boundaries. New media are changing this, but the paradox is that the biggest threat to journalism is in fact new media, Audiences are fragmenting and the younger generation prefers social networking sites and wikis which are free.
Networked journalism does not yet provide full opportunities for open dialogue on the key issues of our time. Radio phone-ins, web forums and blobs create active spaces for discussion and they provide platforms for individuals to corded mainstream media. Little Green Footballs - a blog - for example, revealed how a photographer working for Reuters faked photos of the Israel/Hezbollah conflict.
With networked journalism, the journalist becomes the facilitator instead of the gate-keeper. Examples come from the BBC World Service Trust which is enabling Pashto and Dari speaking audiences, inside and outside Afghanistan to listen to their favourite radio programmes using the Internet. Another, Zig Zag allows young people in Iran who use a secret language to communicate, offering the first chance they have had to hear each others' voices, and to engage with figures such as religious leaders.
From a policy point of view, if these new forms of media are to grow, funding will have to shift from support for traditional journalism to promoting media literacy. Support for this might not be very strong because networked journalism goes against the grain of governments. When openness conflicts with traditional modes of operation governments become uneasy. Few political systems are predicated upon the need for an informed, let alone networked public.
Networked journalism can give rise to heated and contested debates. But public debate is needed because we need new moral spaces for collective deliberation and action. When it comes to portraying distant others, the traditional media often fail us badly. They often do not grant those at a distance their own humanity - they either push them away so that we do not see their humanness, or they bring them so close that we cannot see their distinctiveness. Distant others have to be recognised as - others with humanity. Networked journalism provides a basis for optimism that public dialogue may become more hospitable, caring and a just space for all.
The media circulate the Abu Graib pictures, Iraq war footage, and give rise to the Danish cartoons controversy and this heightens the global visibility of violence. We have to ask - what is the impact of spectacles of violence on our ideas about public life, identity, and the norms that guide our judgments about ourselves and others? Networked journalism could encourage public action that grants equal value to human life, regardless of whether such life belongs to 'my' community or another community. Networked journalism may help us to reflect on why suffering is occurring and what can be done about it.
Networked journalism may offer the possibility to move away from Eurocentric dialogue. To engage in 'boundary thinking' instead of uniform globalised world thinking. Networked journalism is bringing the possibility of seeing local histories and remapping stories of colonial difference and exclusion into a more worldly culture. It may help us to move beyond old dichotomies like 'north' - 'south' and 'information rich' - 'information poor', and towards new, not yet completely understood alternatives.
How might this be possible? It is possible because networked journalism has a chance to support 'translations' that can underpin mutual understanding and intelligibility among those who have worldviews that are different and at odds with each other. If networked journalism creates the possibility for new border crossings and translations, then it could contribute to mutual understanding.
This potential, however, depends hugely on widespread media literacy. Media literacy is often seen as providing people with a means to protect themselves from harmful aspects of media. Media literacy is also essential for participation, active citizenship, learning and cultural expression. Much effort is devoted to acquiring literacy for basic understanding - reading and writing. But little attention is being given to a more sophisticated understanding of the media. Improved media literacy means increasing critical evaluation capabilities and capabilities for creating communications. Media literacy principles are being developed under various charters and conventions, but they are not being widely translated into teaching resources. Routes to media literacy such as online resources reach the already-informed. Increasing resources for media literacy and equalizing competencies so that all may benefit is the enormous challenge for the media in the future. It is crucial to the success of the challenge for peace.