Equilibruim (Part 1)
I'm in Slovenia, in the rain, on a bike. It's divine. As you know, writing online has given me tremendous pleasure in the last few months. But typing to you sits in a greater context. This is the first of a two-part essay on an equilibrium we're seeing. The next part will be out next week (I'll still be on my bike!).
Have a good week, all.
H
We are living through a great equilibrium between the power of the state and the individual. Militarily government power is immense. Yet, networks allow the individual to reach people on a state scale. The individual now has equal power over the information society consumes.
This new equilibrium means influencers have unparalleled access to their devotees. PewDiePie has 53 million subscribers for his English YouTube channel. Trump, at heart an influencer, had 80 million Twitter followers before his suspension. Influencers are distinct from the celebrities of the '90s (or earlier). They control their message. They have the visibility of Saturday Night Live or POTUS, with the overheads of a student with expensive taste.
There are millions of influencers out there across YouTube, Facebook, Snapchat, TikTok and others. Each wants attention. Each controls their own story. Each disempowers the authorities that once controlled the story of our world.
Centuries from now, few will remember today's news. Covid, Brexit and the Great Depression of the twenty-first century will be footnotes. Our distant descendants will remember today in the shadow of the World Wars. Only 70 years ago, humanity, with the new tools of heavy industry, was turned on itself. More than 3% of the worlds 2.3bn population died.
The first half of the twentieth century was the peak of the era of Authority. Infamous leaders like Mao (45 million dead), Stalin and Hitler, (and those of the 'free world') held unimaginable power. How? Their grasp on information was vice-like. Yet today, despite fake news and Main Stream Media, the same control of a narrative is impossible. Only watch Hancock or Biden or any other politician trying to sell their tale.
As defined: An authority has the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience. A traditional authority must control a story to exercise power. For much of the 'industrial era', this story was piped through newspapers. Newspapers are a relic of the industrial age.
Today, in our networked world, facts are commoditised. I no longer need to look at a newspaper for a stock price, the score, or the latest on the Free Britney campaign. It's free, online. Newspapers get paid for ads, and more recently pay-per-views. So, accessible and good content undermines the business model of the newspaper industry. The unique value that remains is the expose's and the OpEds, which are on Twitter and Substack.
The News of the World opened in 1861. At the time, the tabloid newspaper was the cheapest and most devoured in Britain. Publishers wrote it for mass-market delight. Like social networks today, the newspaper vied for attention.
Lord Riddell owned The News of the World in the early 1890s. Being low-brow, the paper collected establishment detractors. In 1891, Riddell met his friend Fred Greenwood, the owner of the Pall Mall Gazette, at his drizzly London members' club.
Peering over a lit pipe, and with excitement, Riddell told Greenwood about his paper. "I'll send you a copy", said Riddell.
Next time they met Riddell said, "Well Greenwood, what do you think of my paper?".
"I looked at it", replied Greenwood, "and then I put it in the waste-paper basket. And then I thought, 'If I leave it there the cook may read it'—so I burned it!".
While viewed as trash by some, the paper stayed relevant and read. For a time, the News of the World had a monopoly on gossip. It was the Daily Mail side-bar-of-shame of its time. The newspaper pioneered the use of chequebook journalism (paying sources for sensationalist information). The dirt swept up kept readers in the know of public official's private affairs. It kept the paper relevant.
Readership peaked in 1990. The rise of the internet, specifically of blogs, commoditised the gossip facts that the News of the World had monopolised. When readership began to drop precipitously in the early Noughties, the paper had to go further to stay interesting. The drive to remain relevant was corrupting (as it always is). In the case of the News of the World, it led to the phone hacking scandals (where journalists were routinely hacking the voicemails of murder victims – deleting potential evidence -- and hacking the phones of their families and celebrities). The corruption was prolific: "Everyone knew. The office cat knew", said a reporter.
The parallels to today are plain. The Authority seeks to attract the broadest possible audience and holds a monopoly for a time when it's possible to do so. As the Information Age advances (which it tends to do), the Authority seeks relevance. It reaches for quick wins, thereby undermining its integrity. It's a game the newspaper can't win--and hasn't. Politicians have done the same, with over-promises and soundbites.
We live like fish in a tank, consuming, recycling and embodying the information that flows around. This is our information sphere. The community shares the sphere—it comprises the information we have access to.
Until recently, our information sphere was small and created by government and religion. We got used to knowing on a need-to-know basis. This limit on the flow of information was not out of malice but out of practicality. From the advent of writing to the delivery of the printing press, the authors and transcribers were religious men. Libraries were churches. Few people were literate. They didn't need to be; there was no access to information.
The journey to equilibrium began in the 1400s, with the invention of the printing press. The invention was a watershed moment. The printing press enabled the widespread dissemination of books. The chaos settled somewhat after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. Soon after, the printing press became an instrument of state power. Newspaper magnates controlled the media machines and the printing presses. They became dynastic allies to politicians.
… to be continued next week …