THE Kate Fitzgerald controversy in The Irish Times, the Magda
controversy in The Irish Independent and most recently the autism
controversy in The Examiner have something in common.
All raise questions, not just concerning subject matter but over
whether the stories should have been published in the first place or
whether they should have been published in the form in which they were
published.
But most crucially perhaps is how the newspaper responds to the public
outcry unleashed after their publication.
In the not too distant past, that outcry was confined to ‘letters to
the editor’ pages over the following days or to RTE’s Liveline but the
decision of who to let on air still rests with the programme producers
and the newspaper remains in control of which responses to publish.
The critical difference today, as proven by these recent stories, is
that the voices of the voiceless are no longer limited to these
outlets.
There is infinite space on the worldwide web for the enraged, hurt,
indignant or just plain opinionated to have their say.
When controversy erupts, news websites, blogs and social media
platforms, such as twitter, burst into life.
For a daily newspaper, the twenty-four hours between initial
publication and clarification -if one is called for -can seem like a
very long time indeed.
And yes, some cyber comments may be deemed to be irrelevant, pedantic,
vindictive invective or even drivel but in this ever- changing medium,
news is being redefined and democratised as never before.
We can now engage with a wide audience on the subject in a very immediate way.
Just as paper doesn’t refuse ink, cyberspace doesn’t refuse emoticons.
But traditional media does not have to be the passive or silent
bystander. Nor should it be. The option is there to engage with the
critics and defend its editorial decisions.
So when Conor Brady expresses concerns about “incremental
deterioration with ultimate failure of mission” or Alan Crosbie
describes the tsunami of Internet news media as a “threat to
humanity”, and Ruairi Quinn likens cyberspace to a playground for
anonymous back-stabbers, I am tempted to say ‘build a bridge’.
On line media is here to stay and its strengths far outweigh its weaknesses.
The power to communicate to the masses is shifting away from an elite
minority and traditional media- and those who communicate through it-
are being held to higher account.
What could be so wrong with that?