• by Mike Bloxham , Op-Ed Contributor, February 22, 2008

There was a time when the principal form of news distribution was the town square. The citizenry would gather round to hear the town crier hold forth with the latest proclamations and announcements: all very local and all very relevant.

In time, as literacy became more widespread, handbills would be posted, and those who could, would read them to those who couldn't. Then came the local newspaper and the rest is, well, history.

Fast forward to the current world of Big Media and Big News where huge, capital-intensive organizations report stories from around the world deemed appropriate for millions. Similarly, print publications deliver finely honed products to an audience exponentially larger than those who listened to the town's news centuries ago. But is the town crier wholly consigned to the past?

As technology has progressed, so has the all-encompassing reach of corporate news media, further intensifying the tussle between the depth and nature of reporting and the costs associated with it. The result is that some viewers are disillusioned with mainstream news and are looking elsewhere - hence the concern in some quarters about the future of news programming.

The younger demographic is often targeted as disenfranchised news consumers. Because of their acceptance and comfort with the Internet as well as other media platforms and propositions, it's easy to see how they might be bored with traditional news programming. However, if the students I speak to are representative, there is a healthy portion of young people who want substance rather than flashy, fast-moving segments that seem more like pr propaganda than news stories.

The result of this over-packaged news is that alternative sources have been strengthened inadvertently by virtue of their contrast to Big News. It is often said that many regard Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and Bill Maher as more credible news sources than Brian Williams, Charles Gibson and certainly Katie Couric. These comedians are happy to ask their guests awkward questions or to debate the aspects of major news issues, and amid the jokes and satire the audience finds refreshing and engaging angles to relevant news stories.

Looking beyond TV to the Web, the picture becomes even more fragmented. Google News is a perfect example of how a more disintermediated approach to news can find an audience. It's up to the user to decide which stories and sources to access - read what The New York Times has to say and then click on the Al Jazeera article. You can be as well - or poorly - informed as you please.

Beyond Google News, the story continues with the proliferation of blogs. Propositions like Digg allow for the effective rating and secondary dissemination of news stories, taking the control of news output further from the denizens of the major news producers. Whether we like it or not - and it isn't all good - this is as close as we've come to the fabled democratization of news media heralded in the Internet's early years.

News, after all, is defined by what is perceived to be interesting and relevant. Before the Internet - and particularly before Web 2.0 - this was mostly determined by professional editors and we chose between what we were served. Now, in a world with ready access to more news content of more specific types, that is less the case than ever before. With the means to share content, whether or not we create it ourselves, more of us are becoming part of the "news" process. Whether it's proper news is irrelevant. News judgement is in the eye of the beholder, and the TV fragmentation that made Colbert, Stewart and Maher popular is comparable to what is enabling Digg and others to do the same online.

Consider Facebook: Even though its main purpose is social networking, users are showing increased interest in current events. With debate applications, groups to join and links to news items, it isn't too far-fetched to see Facebook emerging as a default news outlet among groups of similar interest. Some of these groups may even inspire action and participation among their members. But in the final analysis, such a model bears an uncanny resemblance to the town crier of old. In this scenario, any member of the group can be the crier, but it's still about relevant information being delivered to a community by one of their own. Seems like full circle to me.

Mike Bloxham is director of insight and research at the Center for Media Design, Ball State University. (mbloxham@bsu.edu)