How the Web Supplants Traditional Authority
I recently linked to a NY Mag article on the New York Times, citing it as a nice piece on the Web efforts at the Times. I also posted some questions about a quote by the Times' Aron Pilhofer. Aron noticed the link and in turn posted a question back to me. Thanks Aron for taking the time to do that, and what follows here is my response. Here's my take on why I suggested that the Web "supplants and undermines any notion of 'authority.'"
On the point that the Web undermines authority on the Web, Aron and I are in agreement (based on his comment on this site.) But what is it about the Web that supplants authority?
By supplant, I mean that the Web substitutes one kind of authority for another, that the Web itself is a system of authority, although a different kind of authority. So not only does the Web remove barriers to publishing and communication -- the barriers that others use to make claims of authority -- but the Web also institutes another kind of authority, although I like to think of it as a kinder, gentler authority. This authority is based on consensus among peers. It is relational authority -- many objects pointing to another and confirming the legitimacy and authority of the other.
This authority is clearing typified in Google's PageRank algorithm. I do think, however, that the concept is writ large across the Web in all kinds of ways. Social relationships on the Web are confirmed by the relationships between sites on the Web -- i.e. my personal site points to my Twitter page, my Facebook, etc. The same circle of "friends" show up across various sites. My GPG key has been signed and verified by other people's GPG keys, confirming my identity and creating a trust ring. Using relationships as a structuring principal (and here I mean "relationship" in the most encompassing sense of the word -- personal relationships, link relationships, relational properties of data, etc.) creates a system of authority, one in which a given object is deemed authoritative based on its relationship to other objects.
To take this back to the news industry, which is where this discussion began, something isn't really news on the Web only because it appears on a news site. Something becomes news on the Web because of the ground swell of linking that occurs around something when it becomes popular. And think more than just backlinks from other web pages a la PageRank. Think emails sent to friends, Facebook wall posts, tweets, IRC, and on and on. News isn't news on the Web because it appears on nytimes.com or washingtonpost.com or any other news web site. News is news on the Web when the right places begin pointing to said object and declaring it news.
The only people for whom appearing on a major newspaper's Web site is a prerequisite for being considered news is fellow journalists. And I would argue that even that reinforces the notion that authority is derived from relationships, i.e. this group of people agree that this thing is authoritative as news, which is completely different from previous systems where authority is claimed as divine right or as some function of one's position in society or control of the means of publication.
This is nothing new, really. Oral tradition gave way to the written word. The written word gave way to the printed page. The printed page gave way to the computer screen. And now here we are. Just the way mass-produced Bibles in the vernacular killed the hand-written priestly Bible's claim to authority so the Web kills the printing press's claim. The shift in authority from page to pixel is much the same as the shift from a priestly class to a publishing class. So if we're going to reinvent ourselves in this age, let's don't stake our claim on trying to transition old models to a digital age. Let's fully embrace the age for what it is, new system of authority and all that such a thing means.
Pop-culture Bibles FTW!
Posted by deryck on January 29, 2009
Comments
Aron Pilhofer on January 29, 2009 at 2:56 p.m.
OK, I can buy some of this. I agree that the web enables a different sort of authority based on consensus. It certainly democratizes to an extent the way something becomes news, and provides an alternate path that is very, very difficult to duplicate except on the web.
But that in no way shape or form supplants traditional notions of authority. In fact, I would argue just the opposite -- that with more and more sources out there looking and feeling like news, claiming to be authoritative, those organizations with long track records (like the Post, Times, etc) will be more valued than ever.
Popularity isn't the same as authority, and you don't have to look too far into the archives of DIGG or similar sites to know that 10,000 Frenchmen can be (and often are) very, very wrong. I think you're commingling the two concepts. By your definition, Drudge would be among the most authoritative sites on the web, an assertion I think both of us would probably disagree with.
There's also a certain circularness about your argument: True, something doesn't become popular/shared/digged/etc just because it's posted on nytimes.com, as opposed to my own crappy blog. But it is also true that because The New York Times is a trusted source for news, once something is posted there, it becomes news.
It's not like those potential readers just randomly ended up on nytimes.com. If I posted the same story on my own blog, it's possible no one would see it -- and that's because aronpilhofer.com is not a site widely recognized by a broad spectrum of readers as an authoritative source of news. Nytimes.com is, which is why we see millions and millions of readers daily -- and why our readership continues to grow.
deryck on January 29, 2009 at 4:54 p.m.
@Aron, thanks again for taking the time to comment! My little site is honored!
First, I don't mean to equate authority and popularity, and I don't think that's what I'm saying. I'm speaking of a network of relationships that determine the authority of something on the Web. That can feel like a link popularity contest at times, but I think what I'm arguing exists is something more sophisticated than link popularity alone. I may be doing a terrible job of articulating that here. In my head, however, it makes perfect sense. :)
I will agree, though, that you and I are using "authority" and "authoritative" in different ways. I'm speaking about big A authority as in the kind referenced when one makes an appeal on the grounds of authority, which is how I read your initial quote -- reading it to say that the Times should pursue the role of an authority on the Web. I don't necessarily equate authority with trustworthiness or valuableness, which as we continue to talk seems to be the way you're using authority. Someone could be an authority and may or may not be trustworthy or valuable. I recognize that many folks link authority and trust, but I'm not really thinking that one results in the other.
If the question is should the Times work hard to be a trusted source of news on the Web, I would answer whole-heartedly "yes!" and applaud that goal. Just as I would hope any journalist would desire to be trust-worthy, accurate, and objective. That seems something different to me than trying to be an authority (big A authority, not authority in the sense of an expert on the subject). I'm seeing authority in a larger sense, as a power or an influence derived from one's position in the given culture.
And actually, I *would* argue that Drudge is an authoritative news site. Is it very trustworthy? No. Is it always accurate? No. Does the site drive the news cycle, even extending its influence to print and broadcast news? Heck, yeah. So in that sense he's an authority, and I would argue a very powerful one.
Are their negatives to this? Of course. As is the case with any other system of authority. Do we need more trusted sources on the Web? Of course. And I don't want you to think I'm saying the NY Times is not trusted, useful, and powerful in news. Of course it is! I have no issue with the Times. It may be that the continued trustworthiness and usefulness of the Times on the Web ensures its authority in news for many, many years to come. I'm just not sure you can set out with that as a goal. Distributed networks have a way of challenging the fault tolerance of any single node.