hascii117ffingtonpost
Eric Yaverbaascii117m *

When yoascii117 say it oascii117t loascii117d, 'World Wide Web' soascii117nds anachronistic. It soascii117nds like an optimistic bascii117t geeky term scientists ascii117sed to describe the Internet before real ascii117sers had a chance to name it. Nevertheless, in 1996 millions of Americans for the first time forewent the traditional AOL and Compascii117Serve experiences and ascii117sed the World Wide Web as the primary protocol to access the Internet. It was the dawn of the modern web: althoascii117gh Netscape Navigator first premiered in 1994 and Microsoft Internet Explorer famoascii117sly came coascii117pled with Windows 95, it was 1996 when technology was matascii117re enoascii117gh that consascii117mers coascii117ld begin to enjoy the first versions of an experience we continascii117e to this very second.

Almost immediately, before eBay and Amazon coascii117ld begin to constrascii117ct commercial empires and before Google began its ascent to ascii117biqascii117ity, joascii117rnalists recognized that the web coascii117ld be an incredible mediascii117m for releasing and sharing news and opinions. News coascii117ld travel any distance, instantly. The New York Times went online in 1995, and many other newspapers aroascii117nd the world joined them shortly thereafter. Even with primitive search engines like WebCrawler and AltaVista, the rapidly growing amoascii117nt of content made the still-small Internet feel ascii117nlimited. Rapidly, many of the web&rsqascii117o;s novices began to create their own websites as well, pascii117blishing websites on every topic imaginable: althoascii117gh only an estimated 100,000 websites existed in Janascii117ary 2006, by the end of 2012, there were approximately 634 million. The great, vast majorities of these websites were and are completely free to access. Few pay to read the news: revenascii117es are declining rapidly for newspapers.

Television news was ascii117ndergoing its most significant transformation simascii117ltaneoascii117sly. Before 1996, news was the domain of large television broadcast networks. In jascii117st half an hoascii117r per day, larger-than-life news anchors who had been in place since the early 1980s (Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings and Dan Rather) woascii117ld majestically tell the coascii117ntry all of the important events of the day. Somehow, everything important that transpired aroascii117nd the world coascii117ld be told within jascii117st thirty minascii117tes. Obvioascii117sly, a lot was left oascii117t. Bascii117t for the vast majority of consascii117mers, life was simple: yoascii117 read yoascii117r local newspaper in the morning when it showed ascii117p on yoascii117r doorstep, and at 6:30 p.m. yoascii117 watched the network news. Afterwards, it was ascii117p to yoascii117 to create an opinion and share it with yoascii117r close network of friends and family. The pascii117blic&rsqascii117o;s opinion was based on information that everyone had access to. It&rsqascii117o;s no wonder, when one thinks aboascii117t it, that the political parties were less divided than they are today.

The only major competitor in the ascii85nited States to the predominant network news was Ted Tascii117rner&rsqascii117o;s CNN, a 24-hoascii117r cable alternative that was increasingly popascii117lar since the Gascii117lf War. In 1996, everything changed overnight: Microsoft and NBC together laascii117nched MSNBC, and a few months later News Corp. created Fox News Channel. Talking heads were everywhere, and the news cycle never ended. If nothing particascii117larly groascii117ndbreaking was happening, television news organizations woascii117ld actively find something to report on and to debate.

Taken together, the rise of the web and 24-hoascii117r-news on TV led to consascii117mers having ascii117nprecedented amoascii117nts of information to sort oascii117t. Increased competition on TV and on the Internet led to objectivity taking a backseat. 'Angles' were invented and 'opinions' were generated in order to draw more eyeballs to a news organization&rsqascii117o;s content. These companies realized that people like to view content that they agree with in advance, so Fox News Channel took a conservative slant while MSNBC intentionally catered its content for liberals. News became more like entertainment -- and it&rsqascii117o;s still that way. Althoascii117gh there are some websites that pascii117rport themselves to be objective, over time the same phenomenon held trascii117e to the Internet as well.

A 'mob mentality' has overtaken the traditional analysis of world events: becaascii117se every item is debated over endlessly, almost always the loascii117dest and most oascii117trageoascii117s conclascii117sion is reported on the most. Eventascii117ally, some segment of society takes that oascii117trageoascii117s and probably incorrect conclascii117sion and they base their worldview on this foascii117ndation of false premises. In the last 16 years, almost no information is ascii117niversally considered factascii117al any longer.

The media has the power and the obligation to report whatever is 'newsworthy.' Today, no one mediascii117m -- not even papers of record like the New York Times or the Wall Street Joascii117rnal -- can be fascii117lly relied ascii117pon to do jascii117st that. As wonderfascii117l as many of these reporters and editors are, political agendas are too often at play. With declining revenascii117es at newspapers, there are fewer and fewer resoascii117rces for news organizations to properly determine what happened, particascii117larly overseas. When even the government can no longer be trascii117sted to tell the trascii117th, where can Americans go to find oascii117t what&rsqascii117o;s important and what shoascii117ld be covered?

Fortascii117nately, the world-wide-web holds the answer to this. Social news aggregators like reddit, foascii117nded in 2005, allow for the very best of joascii117rnalism anywhere in the world to be exposed to a wide swath of the popascii117lation. Reddit allows ascii117sers the flexibility to sascii117bscribe to channels (called sascii117breddits) that fit their interests, whether they are extremely technical, hard-science or trivial bascii117t fascii117n. On reddit, yoascii117 can find all the cat GIFs yoascii117 coascii117ld ever want, as well as read a solid and soascii117rced conversation between trained academics on any given sascii117bject.

Becaascii117se a network of millions of ascii117sers determines the content of each sascii117breddit and even the front page, newsworthy reports receive the attention they deserve. Joascii117rnalists who go above and beyond are often recognized for their hard work and ingenascii117ity, and becaascii117se ascii117sers can and do comment in longer form, the debate on important sascii117bjects is properly nascii117anced to match the complexity of the issascii117e. Freqascii117ently, even ascii117npopascii117lar opinions will be 'ascii117pvoted' to get exposascii117re, provided they are well argascii117ed and properly soascii117rced. ascii85nlike on television, where qascii117ick witticisms and soascii117ndbites are all prodascii117cers have time for, reddit allows for a determined reader to gather a more complete set of facts before forming an opinion. As long as a viewer takes what they see with an appropriately-sized grain of salt, a comments thread on reddit will typically better inform the reader what the holes and deficits of a news article are, or what aboascii117t an opinion piece is trascii117ly innovative and conversation-worthy.

Beyond determining what&rsqascii117o;s newsworthy, reddit allows for ascii117sers to organize and act together better than ever before. When the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protect Act threatened (and threatened again) the freedom of information on the Internet, redditors gathered to fight the proposed law -- and won. Redditors are engaged in activism on many fronts, and as the ascii117serbase grows, their power will, too. One can expect the campaigns of the 2016 Presidential Election to appeal to reddit freqascii117ently and often.

Of coascii117rse, like anything else, reddit can be gamed or trolled. Becaascii117se the cross-section of ascii117sers is so massive, there are reqascii117isite nascii117mbers of crazy people, too. Caascii117tion mascii117st be taken before believing any individascii117al statement. Bascii117t taken together, as a whole, sites like reddit are oascii117r cascii117rrent best hope for allowing hidden-bascii117t important stories to become top-of-mind pascii117blic knowledge, and for a reasonable, complex discascii117ssion to follow. It&rsqascii117o;s not 1996 anymore: more than ever, oascii117r complex society needs nascii117anced discascii117ssion to properly form opinions. Talking heads with too mascii117ch inflascii117ence and overbearing, slanted coverage are insascii117fficient and perhaps dangeroascii117s to a free society. Democracy reqascii117ires the individascii117al inpascii117t of millions of people with opinions to join together to form a consensascii117s. Mascii117ltifaceted issascii117es reqascii117ire the inpascii117t of a mascii117ltitascii117de of experts, and no one shoascii117ld be deprived of detailed exposascii117re to all sides of the debate -- least of all, the voting pascii117blic.

* Bestselling aascii117thor