Fergus Cassidy

Source code

THE sense of anticipation by the big television networks of the looming war in Iraq is palpable.The starting gun can't come too quick for them, as they know that such a conflict will send the ratings soaring. Right now they're busy booking military experts and the computer graphics people are working overtime.

The technology of war has moved on quite a bit from 1991 and with it computer science. This time we're going to be viewing the latest advances in digital wizardry and computer animation. Technowar, what is it good for?

Well it's a great way of dealing with war without having to mention the horrendous loss of life and suffering. With state-of-the-art graphics and technology available to fill the hours and hours of unscheduled programming, there's no need to upset viewers with the real casualties of war. Including the truth.

The ensuing battle for hearts and mind - and of course higher viewing figures - is not just about reporting the news, it's also about getting there first. The tiniest and least significant of facts is trotted out as being big news. Big because no other network has it.

Big media, with its 24-hour, up-to-the-minute technology, is an enormously competitive business. Over the last 10-15 years, network giants have been formed as independents or stand alone television stations found the going either too tough or too tempting to hold on. Television is not alone either.

All media has witnessed the gobbling up of the smaller fish by much bigger ones. This is happening in Ireland with radio stations and local newspapers changing hands for very large amounts. In a strangely ironic twist the Get Big Quick momentum now afflicts media companies the way it once did the internet.

Now how the effects of this plays out down the road is a story for another day, but I'm totally convinced that the internet will grow in importance as media diversity shrinks.

Even though it's still early days in the shake-out of traditional media, it seems that media regulators are moving toward the exit signs and making room for a free-for-all, leaving the market to decide which media companies will survive.

Diversity was the one thing the big media giants didn't understand when the net was commercialised. The merger of America Online with Time Warner two years ago was greeted with many superlatives but one word above all. Convergence.

Four years (and gazillions of dollars later), the internet has escaped the Black Widow spider of traditional media and has left the convergence bandwagon to the traditional players. At this point, the fact that a communications technology as significant as the internet is not in play as part of the Get Quick Big onslaught, has to mean that the net is a unique and quite separate form of media.

And it will stay like that for the foreseeable future. Ironically, the great strength of the net over the next few years will be the scarcity of bandwidth. Once bandwidth becomes as cheap and ubiquitous as electricity, then all media can be delivered over the net and the gap between traditional and new will begin to blur.

But until then the net will go a long way toward facilitating the kind of diversity that big media is incapable of providing. The fact that information is not just presented to people but that people themselves also contribute back to the process is not what big media is about. It is strictly a one way street.

As war in the Middle East looms, there is no contest between the net and the media giants in terms of viewing figures. Besides the still cumbersome nature of internet technology, there is the important question of trust.

Big media has established an aura of trust over the last century or so. From the 'if it's in the newspapers it must be true' era to the latter day 'it was on the telly', traditional media doesn't have to struggle as much as the net with the issue of trust.

That's the nature of diversity. Differing views, angles and conclusions. Conflicting information. Obscure sources. No central reference points.

The net doesn't do 'the truth' very well. It's just not built that way. Unlike traditional media, the net doesn't present the truth to the enquirer. That is left up to each individual to figure out for themselves.

What the net does do is not about speed either. It may have been on the net that the failure of the Columbia shuttle was first reported, but only a tiny handful knew about it. Being a couple of minutes ahead of the television networks is irrelevant when the scale of the disaster is taken into account.

What the net is wonderful at is facilitating a uniquely broad range of sources that can contribute to a much bigger and filled-out picture.

That's what so new and innovative about it. The sources. They range from government or institutional files and archives, to input from many different individuals and groups. And all points in between. Not bundled, packaged or gift wrapped, but raw, undistilled and gloriously independent.

The ability - and the low cost - of communicating through the web has led to its explosive growth, and with it an incredible range of sources. Well put by Chris Gulker in his web log recently: "[Authorship] has been democratised, and pushed down from the small, theoretically-highly-expert, professional cadre that were the norm in broadcast media to include a wider group of both amateur and professional authors who are the norm in peer networks like weblog communities".

Those with most to fear from the changing media landscape will, no doubt, point to Chris' use of the word amateur. Meaning unreliable, untrustworthy and not to be taken seriously. Fans with keyboards, who can't always tell fact from fiction.

Which leads me finally to the zookeeper in Germany, who fed his constipated elephant Stefan 22 doses of animal laxative, a bushel of berries, figs and prunes and was then suffocated in the outflow from the very relieved elephant.

"The sheer force of the elephant's unexpected defecation knocked Mr Riesfeldt to the ground, where he struck his head on a rock and lay unconscious as the elephant continued to evacuate his bowels on top of him," said Paderborn police detective Erik Dern.

At least I can find out for myself whether this much-travelled story is true. Or just another pile of crap.