The End of Authority
It almost sounds like a clichè, but the modern world is indeed more complex than it ever used to be, and information technology one of the main reasons why this happened.
Not long ago, books were one of the main tools we used to share knowledge, and they took years to write, with very few people able to write and share them. Powerful people in the world were unknown to most, icons rather than people. Accounts of key events would reach people long after they happened, only few different ones would be available, and people could not immediately share opinions about them. And, above all, the means to spread news were expensive and accessible to few people and organisations. People tended to choose a source of information they could trust, and rely on it as a compass for their decisions. For each aspect of their life people could count on an authority, something to identify with and follow, or to condemn and fight against.
Then radio came about, followed by TV, and finally the internet. Everything got exponentially faster: now people have less time to absorb information, the news cycle is always active, always working. People comment on news ceaselessly, and each of us has access to a myriad of opinions. More crucially, everyone can potentially become a publisher, and everyone can reach millions of people becoming, in practice, an authority. Or, to use a more now term, an influencer.
This had led to a unprecedented fragmentation of the media landscape.
Internet seemed poised to become a way for people to be exposed to different opinions. Instead, it has turned itself into a device channeling people into their own, specific niche. In this fragmented public discourse, many voices make themselves heard, but very few dialogue takes place.
Looking back at quieter, slower times with nostalgia can be tempting, but it’s good to remember the downsides of the way things used to work. In a world with few sources, information was easy to manipulate, especially for those in positions of power. Given the high costs related to their management, only few people could afford to own and control mass media in the past, and this is partially true also today.
We used to consider this the norm, but what if this was just a moment in time, and a very imperfect one? What if the authoritative figures we had until recently were so just because we had no access to better options? What if we could get beyond an era of authority by scarcity?
The internet has made it much harder for powerful figures to hide their skeletons. Even in an era where investigative journalism struggles to get sufficient financing, the power of individuals to break ranks, to leak and to gossip allows underlings to have unprecedented power against their superiors. But this generated also more confusion, more chances to get inaccurate information, to spread conflicting versions of the truth. The resulting world is one where the very idea of reality seems to be put into question, and it comes as no surprise that, according to research, trust in both media and politics has been extremely low in the past few decades.
This is a time of transition and chaos, and as such it’s both fragile and full of opportunity. The most sensible solution, and the one yielding more benefits for our society, suggests giving more and more people the ability to understand the quality of the information they receive. This could increase citizens’ participation as independent players in the arena of democracy, restoring their ability of having an open conversation without sacrificing standards and accountability.
A conscious and empowered public opinion does not mean the end of authority. Instead, people with authority — an authority not stemming from scarcity as in the past, but granted by solid working ethic, reliability and accuracy — could find new incentives to communicate with each other, turning fragmentation into a fluid and healthy market of ideas.
Emilio Bellu, Go Think Initiative Vice-Chairman.
