Which Came First, the Medium or the Message?

The recent flap over allegations of CIA involvement in the sale of crack cocaine on the streets of Los Angeles left a frayed thread that feels as if it should be pulled. Its unraveling may tell us something about the impact of technology.

One of the issues raised by the story, which began with the publication of a series in the San Jose Mercury News, was that promotion and presentation of journalism through the Internet might create a different kind of impact than a printed story.

The Web version of the Mercury News story used a graphic--later pulled as potentially inflammatory--and included selected supporting original documents. The site was also used to promote the story worldwide. All of that appeared to have the effect of magnifying the allegations.

Whether or not the story was on target, we’re left with an issue: Is the Web a “neutral” technology? Is it simply more machinery that can be used for distribution of information that may be seen as good or bad?

Or is the Web itself a potential force, a creation that innately has or promotes specific values? Does it change the way in which social influence is distributed? And if Internet publishing is seen as having a different kind of influence from other media, what will that mean for a global audience and for governments that might want to keep control?

Publications with a “brand name” say they will bring credibility to the Web, that their work is believable because they apply rigor to gathering, processing and packaging information.

The great mass of Internet-accessed individuals, though, argues exactly the opposite. On the level playing field of the Web, they say, all publishers are equal, and finally it is the message that will distinguish. When everyone can publish, perhaps only the best ideas will determine what gets heard.

That means our government representatives will have to get used to people talking back. And our business leaders will have to accustom themselves to hearing a torrent of reaction to their products, to their workplace policies, to their pricing decisions.

This multiple-speaking, multiple-audience world will develop unless we start seeing restrictions imposed. Even now, there are signs of that, of course.

The announcement by the People’s Republic of China banning some U.S. newspaper Internet sites, including that of the Los Angeles Times, is a clear reminder that the nation that believed fax technology to be a danger during the Tiananmen uprising in 1990, sees the Internet as bringing too much Western criticism inside the borders of a totalitarian regime.

Is it, well, the medium or the message?

My head tells me that the Internet is as “neutral” as a refrigerator. In fact, intellectually, the many technology introductions that we can think of seem neutral. Sure, CDs managed to displace vinyl records, but did anything really change in our lives?

Neutral technology? John Heilemann of Wired magazine’s “Netizen” is among those to argue adamantly that there is nothing about the Web that should alter the perceived truth of information. If the journalism involved in the crack case was somehow questionable, it is the journalism that should be in doubt, not the Web.

But that seems too simple. Newspapers, radio, fax machines certainly do have some “value” that makes their very existence something other than “neutral” delivery vehicles. That their very existence requires governmental protection and constitutional guarantees should be proof enough.

Introduction of communications technologies everywhere has helped the push for democratization and economic freedoms.

My telephone can connect me with anyone on the globe, and once I’m talking, I can deliver any kind of message I want, unfettered, uncontrolled and largely unmonitored--at least domestically. The phone spurs business, crosses borders and even amuses teenagers, who see it as a source of entertainment. Clearly, the phone also can be used, as we assume it is, by terrorists or hate groups or spies or criminal conspirators.

Is it the telephone itself that allows antisocial or somehow potentially objectionable activity? Or is it the users and the nature of the messages?

It’s still early in the digital evolution, but it seems very possible that the nature of interactivity, total portability, the ease of unregulated international communication and the eventual spread in access to Web-savvy devices in fact will have an impact beyond the messages that they carry.

Television is a prime exhibit for this argument. Sure, one could argue that the television signal is neutral, but the belief that television has permanently changed the world seems unassailable. The ubiquitousness of CNN on the one hand and the Cosby shows on the other shows a tremendous influence on global culture, on the dissemination of information about personalities, values, governmental relations, American culture, indeed on what is perceived as being “true.”

So why not the Internet? Just by existing, it guarantees more voices will be heard within a totalitarian regime. By encouraging a multiplicity of voices, it guarantees that we will test the bounds of taste within a democracy. By its inclusion in educational institutions, the Internet guarantees that over time, expectations about access and response in our society will be heightened for a generation still young.

These are real values that have real influence.

Even if the San Jose paper used the medium in a way that some say distorted the argument, the fact that a regional publication could draw international attention to a serious issue should remind us that the medium indeed may be more than the message alone.

Terry Schwadron is deputy managing editor of The Times and oversees latimes.com, the Times Web site. He can be reached via e-mail at Terry.Schwadron@latimes.com