Social media benchmarking

A whole new wave of “social media” or “citizen journalism” triumphalism swept through the Internet recently, sparked by Facebook/MySpace usage during and after the Virginia Tech killings, and the Digg-distribution of DVD copyright protection-cracking code. The upshot of way too many analyses for me to even attempt to link to: You can’t stop The People in the new social media world! It’s a paradigm shift! Don’t you get it?

I get it. In fact, I’m tired of getting it. I want to know when the new paradigm is going to result in, oh, I don’t know, a better-informed public.

As an example: As recently as this past January,

Many adults in the United States believe Saddam Hussein collaborated with a terrorist network, according to a poll by Knowledge Networks for the Program on International Policy Attitudes. 32 per cent of respondents think Iraq gave substantial support to al-Qaeda, and 18 per cent think the Iraqi government was directly involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

That is, half of the American public still thought that Iraq had a significant role in 9/11.

Now, I certainly understand that the “mainstream media” had a big role in this false belief. The recent Bill Moyers Journal on this subject made that case in devastating fashion.

On the other hand, that program also made it clear that some reporters and stories were getting it right all along. Why didn’t the “word get around”? Why has the word still, evidently, not gotten around?

How about this as the new benchmark: When the social-media revolution results in a substiantial drop in the number of people who believe in something that’s not flat out drop dead wrong, and has massive, far-reaching consequences, then some triumphalism will be appropriate.

Too much to ask?