Carr and Rosen Debate

The Economist hosted a written debate between Jay Rosen and Nicholas Carr on the topic of the the internet's impact on journalism. Rosen sees the internet's impact as largely positive while Carr disagrees. The debate was broken up into four sections and below is my summary of Carr's points:

Opening Remarks

Carr opens by reporting the declining number of journalists employed by print-based news organizations. As more people go to their search engines for news, he argues, the less newspapers make in advertising and sales and the more journalists they have to let go. This in itself isn't necessarily a problem for people (unless you are one of the aforementioned, recently unemployed journalists); technology necessarily renders some jobs obsolete – we don't see many blacksmiths and typewriter repair shops anymore for a reason. However, Carr suggests that this decline in journalists reduces both institutional accountability (e.g., corporations, government, etc.), and fact checking and quality control within news organizations.

His second, and last, main point in his opening statement is simply that for all that has been lost in traditional print-based news, the internet-grown substitutions have not proportionately filled the gap.

Rebuttal

Apart from questioning some of Rosen's assumptions and definitions, Carr makes one primary point: rather than decreasing “pack journalism” as Rosen suggests, online journalism has actually increased the trend. He uses the examples of the Casey Anthony trial and the Anthony Weiner scandal – everyone was reporting on two domestic stories which hardly constitute informed citizens. Quoting the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism, he suggests that “the new paradox of journalism is more outlets covering fewer stories.”

Closing Statements

Carr's final point is the simplest, and in my opinion the most important: opinions about online journalism are shaped by accessibility. He points out that Rosen spreads himself very thin all over the internet, and he is part of the elite in this way. He knows where to get information and has the time to seek after and interact with it. Rosen talks about the success of online journalism because of its democratic-orientation and ability to spark community-wide debates. According to Carr, this assumes too much. At the end of the day, the only people left debating issues and representing democracy are the elite who have access and time.

As a personal and anecdotal example, I've engaged in a number of online debates in comment sections, but ultimately the person who loses is whoever has to leave for work first.