Its been awhile since I've written on the concept of the informationism, so I will start with a bit of a summary. In general, there are two basic concepts as to the definition of informationism.
The first, is more of an empirical view, which is to say that informationism is a sort of web based terrorist propaganda technique. For instance, sending out a chain email saying that the President is not an American citizen.
When I first approached the topic, I was opposed to this definition, as I still remain, suggesting, that while this may be the reality of much of the Internet, Informationism is a more linguistic school of thought, that should serve as a deterrent to distortions of truth.
With this in mind, I suggested that Informationsim seeks to establish three fundamental goals.
1) Determine the accuracy of information.
2) Determine the relevancy of information.
3) Catalogue and organize information in such a way, so as to make it easily accessible.
With these two concepts in mind, I will move onto the role of the media.
In general, informationism, as a method for determining truth, accepts as its fundamental premise, that the more mainstream a source, the more credible the source. For instance, a statistic taken from the blog of Joe the Plumber
is not considered to be a credible source, because it lacks the element of accountability. There is not reputation to be maintained, there is no regulation to insure the statement is true, in many cases, we don't even know who the anonymous blogger is, or if they are just making things up.
In contrast, information obtained and cited with a link from a study from a collegiate study from the Berkley Institute of Science is considered to be a highly credible source.
Now, this is not to say that a blog entry is by necessity in error. In contrast, informationism asks the question, what is the source of information that the entry has used to provide evidence. If the evidence is obtained from a highly credible source, the blog is considered to be credible. If it is obtained from highly partisan and uncredible sources, then the entry is not considered to be credible.
This assumption, leads us ultimately to the role of the mainstream media. In general, a quote taken from the mainstream media, or the AP is considered to be accurate and in context.
Unfortunately, this leads us to the question of media bias. When a mainstream outlet like Fox consistently gives a rightwing slant on an issue, this distorts the accuracy of information.
The answer to this, is that we take note of the political leanings of a particular source. So when a a blog entry uses FOX as a resource, because the media syndicate has a reputation for right wing bias, this in turn calls into question the accuracy of the information.
For this reason, it should be of the greatest interest of the mainstream media to protect its credibility. (This is also why competing networks go to such efforts to attack the credibility of its competitors.)
