The Death of Journalism: David Eaves and Vancouver's Open Source Era (part two)

Christabel Shaler continues her conversation with David Eaves about open source government....

VO: Tell me about the “Death of Journalism.”

This subject is usually approached in terms of what it means for journalists, which is like approaching the discussion of the auto industry and talking about what’s good for automakers. We’re not looking at what is good for citizens and consumers.

It’s not about whether we can save the New York Times. It’s about how we can make interesting news. People assume that the infrastructure of the world would stay the same even if traditional media died, which isn’t true.

There is currently a decline in traditional media and an increasing distrust in journalists. You are seeing people demand a greater transparency from the institutions that govern them. It’s not only that we don’t trust the government, but we’ve also lost trust in the media to report on the government. We don’t trust any institution that’s opaque.

However, trust might become regained if these opaque institutions become transparent. Open data is an important piece in this movement, because anyone can become critical of what’s happening.

VO: Don’t we need journalists to mediate information?

No. If there’s nothing that makes journalists special, then why do we need them?

VO: What about creating a new definition of journalism?

My new definition would be citizen. There may be citizens who are more aggressive, or dedicate more of their time. They may even follow a code of ethics. But, the notion that we need people to mediate information is very different than the notion that we want people to mediate information. In a perfect world, we wouldn’t need journalists.

We choose to have information mediated because we don’t want to dedicate the time and energy ourselves. The cool thing about the want is that it lowers the barrier to entry. It allows us to choose how we receive information.

I might want to receive my news through an ideological lens. There are millions of people on the right who choose Fox News because they want that ideological lens. And there are the people on the left who choose news sources, such as rabble…and this fits their ideological lens.

VO: The majority of media is supplied based on the demands and tastes of audiences. Do you think that audiences can change the supply of media, as they increasingly select more non-traditional media outlets?

I’m not sure if it’s an explicit demand, so much as a behavioural shift. People don’t trust anybody anymore. People don’t see the Vancouver Sun as an authoritative news source that they should implicitly trust. And they certainly don’t see 24hrs or Metro that way. These things are rags that people get bits of information from. People are disappointed when they find out that these news sources have lied to them, but they aren’t shocked. Traditional media is no longer the authority. It's not so much that people are organizing against the media, but they prefer more transparency. People want the opportunity to know what’s actually going on.

In terms of the open data portal, there may only be a small percentage of residents who go and look at the data. But the fact that we have the option of knowing...that’s really powerful.