LJWorld.com

Long ago in ancient Sumeria, scribes were considered to be some of the most important members of society. The oldest known accounts of the civilization were expressed by pressing marks into a clay tablet. Those who devoted their life to interpreting the patterns were held in high esteem, trusted as the only source in which the ruling class could record and recount a history. The ancient Egyptians used inks and papers as well as the Chinese. The common man and woman was illiterate, trusting that the interpretations of the scribes were true.

Fast forward a few years to 15th century Europe. Stone printing became primarily ornamental, giving way to papers and parchment. The continent's favorite book, the Versio Vulgata, had previously been tediously transcribed by hand. That is, until a goldsmith named Gutenburg figured out that, much like a wine press, type could be easily replicated onto copies of pressed paper. Still, presses were rare, and illiteracy still very common.

Fast forward to the 17th century British Colonies. Owning a press was good for business. Business and official documents could be manufactured relatively cheaply. In the Americas, presses were highly regulated, as the ruling class didn't want a repeat of the situations in France and England. But soon, people got tired of the regulations of press and other facets of life. After all, the regulators were across the ocean, what do they know of colonial life? Dissent lead to published grievance, and soon anyone with a press was publishing their opinions. For the most part, only the educated could read the texts, as illiteracy was still the norm.

Fast forward to today. Practically anyone can print anything. Now begs the question of ethics. In the old days, very few could write, let alone read. Therefore, anything recorded in written form underwent severe scrutiny. Before mass communication such as radio, tv, and the internet, Newspapers were THE form of localized information. Paper, ink, and type didn't grow on trees, so therefore the information must be sold. If there were competing presses in a town, the better the journalism, the more profitable the business. This model would press the presses (snicker) to provide the best information. But not today.

I haven't bought a newspaper in years. I don't watch TV. I rarely listen to the radio. I get my information from the internet. Well, not all of it.

Let's rewind back in time a little bit, I almost forgot about another form of communication: oration. Long before the Japanese, Norsemen, or Europeans reached the coasts of the Americas, tribal nations from the tip of South America to the crown of Greenland shared their news and stories with spoken word. Just as scribes were held in high esteem, the storytellers had their place in the civilizations also. Symbols and center pieces for stories were used, such as the vessels of the Chimú in South America, or the Winter Counts of the Lakota, but these were only used as reference. The story travelled generation to generation. Accounts were encoded poetically, and the most important things were remembered, like what plants you could eat, when to move, how to live peacefully, and even how to pay respects.

Back to the present in good ol' Lawrence KS. Seems if I ever want to know what's going on, I can ask someone. Oral tradition is alive and well, but the subject matter has in some ways changed from poetic allegory to events and happenings. Information is everywhere. As I walk into the dorm, I read safety posters, club flyers, at-a-glance phone numbers, and academic brochures. On occasion, I'll read a copy of the Indian Leader if it's there, mostly to read the quotes from students. I'll pull my cellphone out of my pocket to read text-messages for meeting locations, band practice times, or other personal information. I'll sit down in front of a computer to read headlines and articles from around the world. However, of all the information available, the most pertinent is the information I recieve from the people. A five minute conversation can yield more useful information than an hour-long session on the internet.

So what's going on? Objectivity in modern journalism is severely lacking. I recall watching a CNN segment on how poor a journalism source FOX News is, only to switch to FOX News berating CNN. Neither of these segments are news. I tried watching TV when the US deployed more troops to Afghanistan only to find Michael Jackson's funeral on almost every single channel. The radio, even NPR, rarely ever offers anything useful to me as news. And local newspapers and local TV stories always seem to discuss things that seem so very irrelevent, the applicable news, such as anything having to do with the SLT never seems to get to the heart of the story. Maybe the world, even at the local level is simply too complex to put into one place. Perhaps then, a new type of journalism is warranted.

The internet offers a host of weblogs from MySpace to Blogger, to microblogs like Twitter and Facebook. By examining many experiences on the subjective level some truth can be gleaned from the accounts, however no singular source can be accurate. Ironically, this seems to be the most accurate representation of what's going on at a local level, second only to first-hand experience. On a national level, I'll read about the same story from many different perspectives. Analyzing the liberal left, to the conservative right, sometimes I'll get an idea of what's going on. When it comes to politics however, it's hard to ever find any truth except by actually reading the legislation itself. Not everyone reads it though, sometimes not even the members of congress. On a global level, it's even more grey. But subjectivity can be dangerous, especially when one's words are taken as factual and complete.

So what is the new journalism? It's more personal and experiential. It's the observer who must critically analyze EVERYTHING to ascertain the truth for themselves. What do you think?