René Descartes’ “Je pense donc je suis” was the original expression of ‘I think therefore I am’ used in the Discourse on Method (1637) rather than the latter “Cogito ergo sum” used in Principles of Philosophy (1644).

Descartes addressed himself to a broader population rather than restrict himself to scholars who continued using Latin (the influence of the Church in Rome who ignored early versions of the Bible was in Greek and Hebrew, languages of the masses). In similar fashion the King James Bible arose because the King wanted people to be able to read the original source in their own language rather than take the word of the Priest. The Plain English movement also arose from a realisation that engaging with a broad population was highly desirable.

Engaging with a broad readership is therefore not a new idea!

What has changed is the speed at which this happens. A claim has been made that “It is estimated a week’s worth of the New York Times contains more information than a person was likely to come across in a lifetime in the 18th century”. The “Did You Know” video clip also made the claim 4x10^19 (exabytes) of unique information was generated in 2008, that being more than the previous 5,000 years.

(Continuing)

Some things arise as a result:

1. The volume of information means it is no longer possible to even be aware of the existence of more than a very small subset. Stanislaw Ulam’s Dilemma, dealing with knowledge development in pure mathematics, expressed this issue in the face of some 200,000 theorems being published per year as “If the number of theorems is larger than one can possibly survey, who can be trusted to judge what is ‘important’?”

2. Following on from that Dilemma’s identification of the need for trust the process of peer review and publication subjected ideas to scrutiny before they were spread – given the nature of self publication such processes do not occur; the scrutiny may at best be produced in some public discourse. There is a breakdown of credibility in the process as a result.

Descartes was considering the issue of certainty at a time when doubt and manipulation were common. Descartes’ consideration is more relevant now than then given speed of communication, volume and total absence of assurance that what is written is other than baseless opinion.

The questions remain: How do I know the world and have confidence in that knowledge? How do I develop wisdom?, and How do I avoid doing other than ignore the maelstrom of noise because of the impossibility of making sense of it?

A role will always be there for those of known integrity to influence ideas - one upon a time journalists had that, if they return to it they will retain the influence and role.

"news is not an optional extra in our individual and collective lives, but a core necessity"

News is a core necessity for journalists and a few other professions.
Obviously, doctors need to updated about medical news, and lawyers about legal news - but doctors need not be up-to-date with legal news, nor lawyers with medical news (unless they represent medical cases).

Core necessities are air, water, food, health and shelter from the elements, some also include human contact and touch. For most of us, news is but an option, not much more than entertainment. We only like to think of it as "core necessity" because of our addiction to it. The main reason why I check the news is to avoid working when I'm tired - at least I can admit it while others don't.

My main concern is, that we waste our lives passively watching what others do and say, instead of creating our own lives using the limited and precious time that we have. Another concern is that the constant bombardment of new information competes with deeper reading and absorbing of "basic"/"old"/"established" information.

Journalism is just words. Anybody can do it.

For too long news has been hostage to the likes of murdoch and the wordsmiths themselves have become arrogant and bloated in their own self importance.
The media monopolists are rightfully shaking in their boots. The anarchy(ie. no one is in charge/control) of the internet will be their demise.
The free and equal ability of anyone to participate, that is a hallmark of the internet, trumps all of the shallow, puerile sensationalism that the "old" media serves up to us.

Most journalists are arrogant and unethical. They do anything to sell a paper or get some ratings. I for one wont be sad to see them, and their masters, get taken down a peg or two.

Yuyutsu wrote “Core necessities are air, water, food, health and shelter from the elements, some also include human contact and touch. For most of us, news is but an option, not much more than entertainment. We only like to think of it as ‘core necessity’ because of our addiction to it. The main reason why I check the news is to avoid working when I'm tired - at least I can admit it while others don't.”

The control of information is essential to manipulation of society and perpetration of oppression as well as abuse of power. “News is but an option”! The 4th estate’s role, to use Don Chip’s phrase, is “to keep the bastards honest”. The ignorant can not be part of that.

Jürgen Habermas’ work on Communicative Reason argued Citizen Responsibility to engage, the necessity of individuals being part of public discussion. We are enamoured of Citizen Rights, but deny the required responsibilities.

The phrase “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”, attributed to Edmund Burke (but probably surmised from his writings), is another expression of Citizen Responsibility. Using this idea it is clear wilful ignorance ensures evil prevails. Yuyutsu’s position “For most of us, news is but an option, not much more than entertainment” renounces such responsibilities and contributes to evil’s success.

Dear Paul,

The question arises then, how much is enough to keep evil at bay: should everyone read 2 pages of news a day, or 20? 10 minutes or 4 hours? all online news perhaps? Then what about news-contents? must we read all crime news (or whatever the authorities like us to think of as "crime"), including all the gory details? or must we read all sports news? or about what new films are around and what have those "celebrities" recently done?

The next question arising is, what if they don't care: I may read as much as I want, I may even scream as much as I want, it doesn't harm those in power one iota - "a dog that barks - does not bite" and the evil convoy will proceed just the same. Did the bastards in power ever cared whether or not we believe they are honest?

"Yuyutsu’s position “For most of us, news is but an option, not much more than entertainment” renounces such responsibilities and contributes to evil’s success."

So should everyone become a policeman?
or should everyone become a pharmacist?
or should everyone become a baker?

There are so many different ways to help those who are suffering and in need, as well as ourselves and our families, but there are only 24 hours in a day!

This article is a thoroughgoing load of tosh, from start to finish.

Regrettably, it is entirely typical of the intellectual laziness that has given modern journalism such a bad name. It parrots what it believes is conventional wisdom, without a moment of reflection, or even a quizzical, slightly-raised eyebrow.

"The online revolution is comparably epochal in human culture, he argued, as transformative for the media of the late 20th and early 21st centuries as movable type was for the monks of medieval Europe who transcribed every book by hand."

How trite.

Where on Rusbridger's scale might the invention of telegraphy feature, one wonders. Or paper. Or satellite technology.

Such speculation is, of course, a complete waste of time, and acts as a convenient distraction from the key issue, which is "what is journalism's function" - regardless of the technology involved.

Contributing to the answer to this, are such assertions that "the role of the reader who is now increasingly also a producer of content."

Content, yes. But journalism?

That, surely is an important line of enquiry. If journalists see the self-important sound-bites that emanate from the general population as some form of competition to their profession, then - surely - that is a perfect description of the underlying problem?

Journalists have forgotten what their job entails, and hence, its importance.

(Or irrelevance of course. Either way, you need some form of definition of purpose before you can confidently decide which applies.)

"Once, and not so long ago, the production of news was the monopoly of cultural elites and rich men".

With that class-freighted attitude, it unlikely that the wood will emerge from the trees.

Would it not have been better journalism to point out that at least one function of journalism, back in the days when newspapers were the playthings of the rich, was to produce material that could be relied upon as an accurate record of events?

Sadly, journalism has become an arm of the entertainment industry. It says a great deal that two of the more trusted news sources in the US are delivered via the Comedy Channel.

it sounds familiour [i heard much the same thoughts on abc..bigideas]
so in searching for a link

came across this that sounds interesting
[relitive to the topic]
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/boyerlectures/

but here is the one i was thinking of
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2010/11/22/3073387.htm

full clip is here
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/browse/video_popup.htm?vidURL=/tv/bigideas/stories/2010/11/22/3073387-mediarss-full.xml&vidTitle=In Praise of Twitter&vidLength=Full

he had great things to say..[re twitter]
and has really given much thought to the topic
no doudt what he has to say has real relivance to this topic

while were at it
this is one of the best news sources
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/
currently on free to air

ok its from the same sources
and while i agree with many of the points of the respondants
i still recomend listening to the origonal source...and as that link id done..lets reply some of the other issues.

yu...points out the absurdity of sports...police reports and road accidents...or awards...movies..nonsense books..[hairy porter]..etc being news..and paul would needfully agree...[one could spend a lifetime...absorbing this pap..and never evolve mentally one degree]

it is amusing and sad...both at the same time

but real news..[fully reporting facts/and analisis
..like govts workings...and their many grants to the powers that be..should all be included in what we call journal-ism...

[likely pericules might agree...and while it would make dry rerading for many..the shame is..this stuff isnt read-illy avail-able on line in its totallity]..it forms an essential part of life..affects all living

i include in this all govt negotiations...trreaties..discussions they hold with each other in the never never...[even such things demed..in commercial in confidence..[lol]..as if secrecy ever made for good governance

i would extend into that news worthy...things like stock-holder metings...[not the pap..of the daily numbers...seing as that is only a means by which day traiters..make their numbers look like fact.

every important meting should be documented in summation..[not nessesarily in pictures..[the medus-cia [media]..is allready too cosy..with the servants of the elites]

Yuyutsu points to the problematical issue of how much one should read and be able to do in order to deal with the world. We do only have 24 hours in which to live. But the answer is not do nothing; as the Existentialists argued choice is inevitable with the failure to choose being a choice. One chooses and learns one’s way to insight.

One under God looks for truth – facts and analysis – as well as transparency from those most directly affecting life. This idea comes from a time when truth mattered.

The underlying notion of the article is that a move to direct publishing via the internet by all and sundry is epoch making fits to what ‘epoch making’ is defined as; “An event might be described as epoch-making if it has a great effect on the future” (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/epoch-making).

The notion that all can and will define what news is will certainly have a great effect on the future. The idea that all sources have equal legitimacy in spreading news has probably greater impact on the future – opinion is not truth.

The potential abandonment of truth is the most worrying aspect of this change.