Internet Musings

The precise correlation between the invention of the printing press and the internet is a subject of considerable debate: a quick Google search turns up so many business leaders claiming the comparison suggests that it is already a cliche. The exact nature of the net's impact and reach is still open to debate, but one theme is its relationship to printed media.

The apparent collapse of the traditional readership for newspapers has been linked to the rise of the blogger - speaking as someone who scooped The Herald on a rather trivial item this week, I'd like to imagine myself being part of the offensive. But that is just vanity. Questions of authority and inclusion are rarely answered with any finality: luckily, the serial nature of both newsprint and blogging means the dialogue can continue indefinitely.

What is perhaps more interesting is the way that the internet might change not the reading habits but the way of understanding information. Newspapers may or may not disappear - despite spending all day on a computer, I buy that tabloid version of The Independent (and love its constant tone of self-congratulation) and a big Sunday Paper (if they are giving away a free CD or have an interview with Chris Rea). But already, they are evolving in response.

The real impact of the printing press - which will be the test to compare the impact of the web - was on society, not reading habits. The worries that always appear in the face of new media (the ancients worried that the written word would destroy memory) tend to emphasise the threat to existing skills. But  after the printing press, the protestant reformation happened, and this has been ascribed to the availability of The Bible.

The dominant power of the medieval era in Europe- the Catholic Church - was undermined and replaced by a new power. The value systems of Christendom were at first adjusted, then deconstructed. The rise of reason, of scientific method, could be intimately tied to the potential of the printed word.

The authority once handed to the church and its representatives was transferred to the written word. When competing texts appeared, a new location of authority needed to be found - and philosophical investigation was a good fit. Scientific method is even better.

That's probably enough of the obvious stuff: medium is the message, Darwin's theories would not have become known so widely if they had been passed by word of mouth, science is not a series of ideas but is best expressed as an experimental approach, books encourage a sort of meditation on a theme, reading is good for the character.

Here's a few internet specials too: it encourages sound-bite culture (nope, TV did that in the 1970s), it's all porn and clips from bad TV (I found a few videos of the Swans' latest tour, suggesting a discerning presence somewhere), it lacks authority...

Having set up the question - how will the internet change our values and society, I quickly add that not only do I not know, I distrust anyone who claims that they do. We are in the middle of the change, and if the business world thinks that we are going to take its opinions seriously, they might want to ponder the dot.com bubble bursting. So excited by the potential for making cash, they forgot even basic business principles, making my "vision statement" sessions look rigorous by comparison.

Brilliant. I started with such high hopes for this article. Suddenly, I am stuck, left with only the idea that I have no idea what to say. And whatever I have to say ought to have been said in the first paragraph, before the reader got bored.

However, the media studies of Marshall McLuhan are always helpful. Between noting that any technology disables as well as enables (yes, the car is faster than the bus, but the bus allows interaction with other people and is better for the environment), he talks about the medium as the message. By misreading this, I arrive at the idea that the internet will not simply serve to distribute the same sort of information as a newspaper, or a book, but that its technology will encourage a sort sort of expression and information.

For example, there is no way that a newspaper would print this article. It's vague, it lacks substance and I keep changing from serious, faux-objective tone to personal expressions of doubt.

(The medium is the message. The way I am saying this is what I am really saying).

Since I run by blog, and I am trying to up the number of posts, I'll put it up. My idea is not fully formed, but it is possible to follow the links I have inserted, and for the reader, realising through my use of style that I am not trying to make a definitive statement, could have their own tentative response.