Internet is the most potent medium for disseminating information across various audiences around the globe. However, people argue that internet is a source where people can “cherry-pick” facts thereby creating their own “mashed-up” reality. One such argument is made by Andrew Keen, which he refers to as “trivializing” culture.
He alleges that amateurs spread information through blogging, Youtube and Wikipedia which mostly is false and baseless. He loathes the Internet as a medium of free speech simply because it allows self-expression and freedom to convey one’s thoughts anonymously. Keen feels that people who indulge in such activity are irresponsible reporters who are not intellectually sound enough to distribute credible information.
I do not agree with Keen, simply because I feel that facts are often subjective. People, even professionally trained news reporters land up describing an incident based on their preconception, personal and professional bias. It is mostly the common people who interpret that piece of information – right or wrong, god only knows. ;-)
A simple example could be the traditional electronic media’s hype about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or politicians suppressing vital information.
Whenever there is a blast in India, number of dead people are always reported much lesser in number “supposedly” to prevent mass hysteria to settle in. In that regard, internet is neutral as it is equally powerful in displaying facts correctly as it is for disseminating the wrong information.
As far, creation of “ugly” content by non-artists, one is never forced to observe it or comment about it.
The example of user-generated content which is subject to people’s interpretation is the recent and sudden outburst of conspiracy theories and predictions about the future.
Predication about World War III:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8BJwHJFp9g
Prediction about 2012:
