Comments as always are welcome. I'm writing so much because I am a comment whore.
How Things Are
Media cocoons aren't a new thing. Since two newspapers have competed, they have held differing viewpoints and people have bought the one that hey agree with. Recent changes in the media paradigm have just given people more ways in which to surround themselves in what amounts in some cases to personalised propaganda. The problem with that is at base that these cocoons allow corruption of incoming information without any means of checking without breaching the cocoon.
For example: Proliferation of news media. I read the Guardian newspaper, well known over here for being the paper of left-wing intellectuals. The same story that's in the Guardian will be in the Daily Mail (right-wing middle class paper) with a whole other spin on it. This applies to more than just newspapers, television news (CNN vs FOX vs BBC vs ITN) offer a surprising range of diversity.
For many years people didn't have this range of choice. It's only within the last ten years that people in the UK have been exposed to American news channels. News websites have grown from a niche market for geeks to a major source of news for a large number of people online. And now blogs are entering into things, but I'll get to them properly later.
Every source of media carries a bias, not just news. Looking at films, let's try The Patriot,or Enigma. News media just makes it easier to identify that bias. And people are going to get the most perceived value out of media which is in line with their biases — a new age book which uses terms such as "both primitive and Western people" is going to appeal to the bastions of institutional racism, but plenty of other people are going to think the author an idiot. Likewise films, video games, every kind of media. This is ultimately an extrapolation of the obvious: People buy/read/play what they like and what they agree with, and they accept more from sources that they agree with.
The increase in both the volume and the types of media is leading to cocoons beins more and more common. People surround themselves with what they like, so they only read the news they like. Thus it becomes easier to gain popular support through lies, astroturfing and propaganda — the SCO vs Linux trial has been big news because people interested in business have cocoons that are set up to be more accepting of "Business sues rival for giving away product" stories than "Business goes mad and launches idiotic lawsuits", and the technical people are more accepting of "Business tries to sue coders for nothing" than "Business tries to defend own IP". Only the involvement of people like IBM and Novell have made businesspeople look twice, and even then they continue to carry stories that are more lies than truth (witness the recent attacks on Groklaw in the IT/business media). It doesn't matter that SCO's statements have little correlation with what they are actually doing and even less with the truth. People only believe what they are going on some level to agree with.
Blogs. I meant to come back to these, so I might as well. Lots of bloggers are touting blogging as "the new revolution of news media", albeit very prematurely. I do think that they are the next leap, but at present they are in the same niche as news websites were when they first opened. And blogs have a couple of strikes against them already. For a young form of media they have a massive proliferation. Five people writing on politics is one thing. Five thousand people is quite another, especially when they each have their own, ever so slightly different, bias. This makes it hard to find a group of blogs which cover a topic that agrees with a reader, and thus we end up with a few major blogs covering the major centres of bias, with individual smaller blogs being specialisations therein that only dedicated readers are likely to find.
The second and more powerful strike against blogs is that they fuck up Google. There's no polite way to put it, the whole Trackback concept couldn't be a better attack on Google if it tried. Considering the big G has replaced encyclopedias for a lot of people online, anything which messes up the search results is harmful to the overall knowledge base.
That said, when people have a better chance at finding blogs which agree with them, and when the perceptual shift that allows most of the online world to tap into the idea that blogs are valid sources of news comes about, it's entirely possible that any idiot who can subscribe to Blogger can call himself a journalist.
Now. I can either end here with that badly-formed but hopefully informative rant, or I can carry on and extrapolate what I see happening in the future.
You expect me not to speculate? Dear reader, you underestimate me.
How Things Could Be
Stage 1: The perceptual shift occurs. People think blogs are good reputable sources of news — provided that one is talking about the blogs that they agree with.
Stage 2: Google filters blogs. In response, a number of blog-only search engines start up, excluding the rest of the web. This allows people to find blogs on a variety of subjects which meet their bias-sets. Somewhere around here, someone works out a feasible micropayment system.
Stage 3: With this in place, the world is looking for more things to customise. Enter Jesus figg's term for the software), a site like Google. But whereas Google has a fixed seed for the PageRank algorithm, Jesus would be customisable. A search engine that plays to your biases. At first only hardcore geeks and weirdos would pick it up. Then people write a nice, easy to use and idiot-proof front end. It slowly gains net-wide acceptance.
Stage 4: News sites reinvent themselves. People don't want to have to trawl through a vast number of blogs to find the ones they want to read. A combination of the blog search engine and Jesus fixes that. Feedsites. Newspapers reinvented. Each caters for a bias-cluster, a broad set containing a fair few media cocoons. They pay bloggers to use individual entries. The sheep can either go to a feed that they generally agree with, or those more in tune can get content straight from the journo him or herself, assuming he or she is any good.
Stage 5: Offline media starts working like the online feeds. News-distributors adapt or die. People don't want the truth. They want their own flavour of the truth, the one that agrees with them anyway.
There isn't much left after this. The world is set up. Each person, whether aware of it or not, is living in their own media cocoon. Inaccuracies spread. Lies and propaganda become truth to people without them knowing it. Unless they are in the subset of interested parties who deliberately challenge their biases, they will never know.
How Things Could Be Broken
The next stage is subversion.
Social engineering is not a new tactic. Crackers were using it to get credit card numbers long before news websites existed. The VX sceners took it and ran with it. They wanted their code to spread, and that meant convincing people to help them spread it. The best tapped into human psychology. Think about it. Why does spam work? Because most of it appeals to the lowest common denominator of net users. Who are likely to be the ones deepest in their media cocoons? Same group.
The real trick involves finding ways to breach the cocoons. That is not a trick for crackers. It is not something cypherpunks can get in on because the message is in plain sight. It is ultimately a task for the linguists, the information theorists and the journalists. It's the communications graduates who will have the best chance with this.
What needs to be done for subversion is obvious: Target the information. Spam targets people's insecurities, and their greed. That is crude. The new tactic is attack from within. Infiltrate the broad cocoon that you are trying to breach. See what gets the most favourable response. Word the news that you are trying to break into the pop-consciousness in such a way that it will be read. Target each cocoon individually, but make it so that the core is unchanged. Targetted information delivery. If people will not look beyond their own barriers, break them. Smash their common perceptions and force them to see the world as it is by sneaking it in with their breakfast cereals and their soap operas.
Ultimately,the media cocoons are harmful to the freedom of information, and they lead to nasty things. Better arm people with the truth than have them wage war for a lie.
But that's just me speaking from my own cocoon.
This has been a manifesto.
: A real quote, from a book I did not buy
: Fuck off. I'm drunk.