-
@ Martin Enlund
2025-02-16 08:39:59
Almost 150 years ago, the British newspaper editor William Thomas Stead wrote that "the editorial pen is a [sceptre of power](https://archive.org/details/GovernmentByJournalismWilliamThomasStead), compared with which the sceptre of many a monarch is but a gilded lath". He had begun to regard journalism as something more than just conveying information - **the journalist or editor could become a ruler.**
Times had certainly changed compared to a few hundred years earlier. Before [Gutenberg's invention of the printing press](https://underorion.se/en/posts/gutenberg/), it was mainly the church that controlled the dissemination of information in Europe, but when Stead put pen to paper, this control had shifted to newspapers, schools, and universities. Eventually, technologies like radio and TV entered the scene, but the power dynamics remained asymmetrical - only a few could send information to the many.
However, with the emergence of the internet, and especially with the spread of social media, a significant change followed. Instead of only a few being able to send information to the many, many could send to many. Almost anyone could now create their own newspaper, radio, or TV channel. **The power over information dissemination was decentralised.**
[Ten years ago](https://www.di.se/ditv/rikets-affarer-medierna-ar-splittrade/), Roberta Alenius, who was then press secretary for Sweden's Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt of the Moderate Party, shared her experiences with Social Democratic and Moderate Party internet activists on social media. She reported that social media played a significant role in how news "comes out" and is shaped, and that **journalism was now downstream of social media**. [Five years later](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_166392.htm), NATO's then-Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said that "NATO must be prepared for both conventional and hybrid threats: **from tanks to tweets**." This finally underscores the importance of social media.
Elon Musk, who took over X (formerly Twitter) in 2022, has claimed that "it's absolutely fundamental and transformative that the people actually get to decide the news and narrative and what's important," and that [citizen journalism is the future](https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1870485116474278240).
While his platform allows most expressions - for better or worse - the reach of messages is instead limited ("[freedom of speech does not mean freedom of reach](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/R9TuhTz0vmo) "). X has also opened its recommendation algorithm to the outside world by making it open-source. Although this is a welcome step, the fact remains that **it's impossible to know which code is actually used** and what adjustments are made by humans or algorithms.
William Thomas Stead's "sceptre of power", which has wandered from the church to newspaper and TV editorial offices, and now to citizens according to Elon Musk, risks being transferred to algorithms' opaque methods?
Instead of talking about "toxic algorithms" and TikTok bans, like the so many do today, we should ask ourselves more fundamental questions. What happens when algorithms are no longer objective (how can they ever be?), but instead become tools for shaping our reality? **Perhaps our greatest challenge today is not deciding who should govern the information landscape, but instead recognising that no one is up to the task** - not even well-ventilated computers.