The following is a lightly edited version of a presentation made at the Jamaica Broilers Group Fair Play Awards:

Be careful of predictions on technological outcomes. Reality often makes a mockery of them. Video was supposed to have “killed the radio star”, as one song confidently asserts. We hardly hear much about this tune today, e xcept to cite it as an example of a song gone wrong.We were told that the cinema would go the way of the dinosaurs with the advent of television. This, too, did not come to pass. We should therefore make assumptions about the future of technological outcomes with an abundance of caution.Those of us who have lived through the past quarter-century can attest that we have witnessed a period of technological transformation which has perhaps been the most profound and dramatic in human history. A common feature of many technological developments is the expansion of access: allowing a greater number of new entrants to engage in particular tasks and exercises from which they would have been hitherto excluded.Many industries have been spawned and numerous others destroyed through technological shifts. As a result of these technological advances and processes, once considered the purview of the experts, we no longer have to be stenographers to type a letter, or photographers to take a picture. Broadcasters have now become telecoms, and the reverse is also true. Many companies which hitherto were partners have become rivals.I can recall the early days of television in Jamaica when I was ecstatic, as a child, to see the ghostly images dance across the black and white screen in the evenings. Few homes had the great privilege of having access to the then nascent technology. Programming was for a few hours each evening. There was no choice.We had to sacrifice our mobility in order to have access to our televisions and telephones. These devices were tethered, and so were we in order to use them. Today we have the privilege of taking our phones and televisions in our pockets, thanks to the plethora of mobile apps.Today we have access to thousands of channels through these gadgets. I am now able to carry an entire library, many times larger than what we have at Tom Redcam, wherever I go, along with entire supermarkets, department stores, universities, banks, travel agents and a host of other facilities on a device which weighs no more than a slice of bread. To our ancestors this would be beyond fantasy.Yes, we have gone digital and it has severely affected how we manage and order our lives, including how we gather, disseminate and consume news. As a result of the inconspicuous nature of some of the gadgets now available, many of us are often unaware of our being photographed or recorded; a reality which invokes issues of privacy and even fairness. Yet many will argue that a large number of crimes have been solved and a great amount of corruption exposed, thanks to the intrusive nature of these technologies.Technological shifts have not only changed how we make, present and consume news. It has radically changed what is the subject of our newscasts and how it is treated. We have been able for some time to post our texts, video and audio on various social media sites such asThese developments have enormous implications for our notions of fair play, because the traditional media houses which often acted as gatekeepers to protect the public morals and individual reputations are under threat from the digitally enabled new entrants who might not be as zealous about promoting these values. Some will argue that this is the price we pay for the ‘democratisation’ of the media.Yet what is the record so far of this process of media democratisation? There are those who contend that this might have resulted in more chatter and less dialogue. Others argue that, while new technologies have now enabled us to reach large numbers of like-minded persons, it has also amplified the echo chamber effect, as increasingly we exercise the option of listening only to voices which are similar to our own. This can have serious consequences for our political culture, as it gives rise to increasing polarisation, since with little or no access to alternative points of view we are more reluctant to compromise.Whatever we want to say about traditional media, they have played a vital role in providing context for the interpretation of information we call news and have exposed us to a broad range of views. Without the provision of this context and range, our deliberations would likely be free of the appropriate reference points which are necessary for proper decision-making.The phenomenon of instantaneity — another feature of modern media — has sometimes had a negative effect on our political process. Media houses are forced to respond faster for fear of being trumped by rivals who are now often digital insurgents.The increasingly aggressive nature of the news cycle — with its emphasis on speed over accuracy — has forced many public figures to react sometimes intemperately to matters which require reflection and thought. How often have we seen individuals spending inordinate amounts of time correcting themselves for intemperate comments they make in the media? Too often we have witnessed negotiations and discussions which should have taken place in camera being conducted on camera.Another emerging trend is the treatment of news as entertainment. This has often led to the trivialisation of news content. This is as a result of our trying to reach the widest potential audience, which is often assumed to consist primarily of those with grave knowledge deficits and short attention spans. Many have argued that the expansion in the number of media outlets has led to the general lowering of standards. Increasingly there is the move towards the ‘privileging’ of hype over substance, which can have disastrous consequences on our political culture.There are those who believe that the current presidential campaign in the US is more entertainment than substance. Is this outcome a function of how the media have evolved? Increasingly, even shows which are geared towards the more cerebral cannot resist the temptation to sensationalise and yield to the lures of hoopla.Increasing access to an audience, particularly among the hitherto voiceless, does give a nod to the issue of fairness. Theoretically more voices now have better opportunities to be heard. Yet, what about the issues of balance and accuracy? Is the securing of a countervailing point of view often a casualty of the need for speed or the desire to give only one side of the argument?Are some of these emerging media outlets even concerned about accuracy and balance? After all, many of them serve propagandistic objectives and really have no reputation for fairness to protect. It is in the area of balance and fairness that traditional media outlets might have a decided advantage in this highly competitive environment.Established media houses, for the most part, are expected to provide accurate and balanced information, though there are some notable international exceptions. These traditional media houses should privilege such a distinctive trait as a point of differentiation between them and the insurgents. Sticking to the traditional values of balance, accuracy, decency, and fairness might well be the route to survival for the incumbents. So what of the future? How will incumbents respond to the disruptive behaviour of the insurgents in this digitally mediated paradigm? Well, one established approach is for the incumbents to use their financial muscle to gobble up the insurgents through acquisitions or the taking of equity positions.Another response is that of consolidation, aspects of which we are already seeing in the Jamaican media with the recent noteworthy mergers, which is a reaction to the current market conditions. This process often carries the unpopular feature of job losses, a function of the cost-cutting which usually accompanies such an exercise.Yet another response from incumbents is the staging of proprietary events from which the competition is excluded. Also a reaction is securing exclusive licences to air popular local and international sporting and entertainment events. Recently we have noted increased vigilance in the protection of these rights by local broadcasters.Yet there are legislative and regulatory developments which could significantly affect the course of what we assume to be the inexorable march of technology. There are two developments (dependent on their final outcome) which could significantly affect the current trends.One is the issue of net neutrality. This is based on the principle that all traffic on the information superhighway should be treated equally. However, there are those who want to offer differential treatment to users based on the ability to pay. This is almost akin to motorists being allowed to drive faster on our highways because they can pay higher toll rates. The implications for many incumbents, and certainly most insurgents, would be devastating.The other is the issue of copyright. There is a marked shift in attitude towards patent and copyright which are designed to protect creators. A recent edition of

Be careful of predictions on technological outcomes. Reality often makes a mockery of them. Video was supposed to have “killed the radio star”, as one song confidently asserts. We hardly hear much about this tune today, e xcept to cite it as an example of a song gone wrong.

We were told that the cinema would go the way of the dinosaurs with the advent of television. This, too, did not come to pass. We should therefore make assumptions about the future of technological outcomes with an abundance of caution.

Those of us who have lived through the past quarter-century can attest that we have witnessed a period of technological transformation which has perhaps been the most profound and dramatic in human history.

A common feature of many technological developments is the expansion of access: allowing a greater number of new entrants to engage in particular tasks and exercises from which they would have been hitherto excluded.

Many industries have been spawned and numerous others destroyed through technological shifts. As a result of these technological advances and processes, once considered the purview of the experts, we no longer have to be stenographers to type a letter, or photographers to take a picture. Broadcasters have now become telecoms, and the reverse is also true. Many companies which hitherto were partners have become rivals.

I can recall the early days of television in Jamaica when I was ecstatic, as a child, to see the ghostly images dance across the black and white screen in the evenings. Few homes had the great privilege of having access to the then nascent technology. Programming was for a few hours each evening. There was no choice.

We had to sacrifice our mobility in order to have access to our televisions and telephones. These devices were tethered, and so were we in order to use them. Today we have the privilege of taking our phones and televisions in our pockets, thanks to the plethora of mobile apps.

Today we have access to thousands of channels through these gadgets. I am now able to carry an entire library, many times larger than what we have at Tom Redcam, wherever I go, along with entire supermarkets, department stores, universities, banks, travel agents and a host of other facilities on a device which weighs no more than a slice of bread. To our ancestors this would be beyond fantasy.

Yes, we have gone digital and it has severely affected how we manage and order our lives, including how we gather, disseminate and consume news. As a result of the inconspicuous nature of some of the gadgets now available, many of us are often unaware of our being photographed or recorded; a reality which invokes issues of privacy and even fairness. Yet many will argue that a large number of crimes have been solved and a great amount of corruption exposed, thanks to the intrusive nature of these technologies.

Technological shifts have not only changed how we make, present and consume news. It has radically changed what is the subject of our newscasts and how it is treated. We have been able for some time to post our texts, video and audio on various social media sites such as

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat to potentially wide audiences. Thanks to such platforms as Meerkat and Periscope, anyone can now be a broadcaster in its widest sense: assuming the prerogatives of a television station, by generating continuous programming.

These developments have enormous implications for our notions of fair play, because the traditional media houses which often acted as gatekeepers to protect the public morals and individual reputations are under threat from the digitally enabled new entrants who might not be as zealous about promoting these values. Some will argue that this is the price we pay for the ‘democratisation’ of the media.

Yet what is the record so far of this process of media democratisation? There are those who contend that this might have resulted in more chatter and less dialogue. Others argue that, while new technologies have now enabled us to reach large numbers of like-minded persons, it has also amplified the echo chamber effect, as increasingly we exercise the option of listening only to voices which are similar to our own. This can have serious consequences for our political culture, as it gives rise to increasing polarisation, since with little or no access to alternative points of view we are more reluctant to compromise.

Whatever we want to say about traditional media, they have played a vital role in providing context for the interpretation of information we call news and have exposed us to a broad range of views. Without the provision of this context and range, our deliberations would likely be free of the appropriate reference points which are necessary for proper decision-making.

The phenomenon of instantaneity — another feature of modern media — has sometimes had a negative effect on our political process. Media houses are forced to respond faster for fear of being trumped by rivals who are now often digital insurgents.

The increasingly aggressive nature of the news cycle — with its emphasis on speed over accuracy — has forced many public figures to react sometimes intemperately to matters which require reflection and thought. How often have we seen individuals spending inordinate amounts of time correcting themselves for intemperate comments they make in the media? Too often we have witnessed negotiations and discussions which should have taken place in camera being conducted on camera.

Another emerging trend is the treatment of news as entertainment. This has often led to the trivialisation of news content. This is as a result of our trying to reach the widest potential audience, which is often assumed to consist primarily of those with grave knowledge deficits and short attention spans. Many have argued that the expansion in the number of media outlets has led to the general lowering of standards. Increasingly there is the move towards the ‘privileging’ of hype over substance, which can have disastrous consequences on our political culture.

There are those who believe that the current presidential campaign in the US is more entertainment than substance. Is this outcome a function of how the media have evolved? Increasingly, even shows which are geared towards the more cerebral cannot resist the temptation to sensationalise and yield to the lures of hoopla.

Increasing access to an audience, particularly among the hitherto voiceless, does give a nod to the issue of fairness. Theoretically more voices now have better opportunities to be heard. Yet, what about the issues of balance and accuracy? Is the securing of a countervailing point of view often a casualty of the need for speed or the desire to give only one side of the argument?

Are some of these emerging media outlets even concerned about accuracy and balance? After all, many of them serve propagandistic objectives and really have no reputation for fairness to protect. It is in the area of balance and fairness that traditional media outlets might have a decided advantage in this highly competitive environment.

Established media houses, for the most part, are expected to provide accurate and balanced information, though there are some notable international exceptions. These traditional media houses should privilege such a distinctive trait as a point of differentiation between them and the insurgents. Sticking to the traditional values of balance, accuracy, decency, and fairness might well be the route to survival for the incumbents.

So what of the future? How will incumbents respond to the disruptive behaviour of the insurgents in this digitally mediated paradigm? Well, one established approach is for the incumbents to use their financial muscle to gobble up the insurgents through acquisitions or the taking of equity positions.

Another response is that of consolidation, aspects of which we are already seeing in the Jamaican media with the recent noteworthy mergers, which is a reaction to the current market conditions. This process often carries the unpopular feature of job losses, a function of the cost-cutting which usually accompanies such an exercise.

Yet another response from incumbents is the staging of proprietary events from which the competition is excluded. Also a reaction is securing exclusive licences to air popular local and international sporting and entertainment events. Recently we have noted increased vigilance in the protection of these rights by local broadcasters.

Yet there are legislative and regulatory developments which could significantly affect the course of what we assume to be the inexorable march of technology. There are two developments (dependent on their final outcome) which could significantly affect the current trends.

One is the issue of net neutrality. This is based on the principle that all traffic on the information superhighway should be treated equally. However, there are those who want to offer differential treatment to users based on the ability to pay. This is almost akin to motorists being allowed to drive faster on our highways because they can pay higher toll rates. The implications for many incumbents, and certainly most insurgents, would be devastating.

The other is the issue of copyright. There is a marked shift in attitude towards patent and copyright which are designed to protect creators. A recent edition of

The Economist noted that there is a growing view that the current regimes to protect works of the human imagination are too restrictive and retard innovation. This is ironic, given the fact that copyright legislation was designed to spur innovation. Legislation, like technology it seems, can have unintended consequences.

cpamckenzie@gmail.com