Information Exchange – Free V’s Paid?

Rupert Murdoch vs. Alan Rusbridger –  February 2010

You may be interested to know of the ongoing legal battle between Rupert Murdoch, Chief Executive of News Corporation and Alan Rusbridger, Editor of The Guardian, which is in the courts at present.  It relates to the issue of free vs paid information, in this case newspapers, but the debate applies to all information products we consume.  Mr. Murdoch contends that newspaper publishing online should be restricted to paid access and not free which is currently the situation in many newspapers.

Rusbridger contends that the basis of Murdoch’s position is that he ruthlessly cut the price of his papers below cost in order to win market share and drive out competition.  Having achieved dominance Murdoch is now being highly vocal in asserting that the reader must pay a “proper sum” for the content, whether in print or digital.

This got me thinking on the wider issue of how we as physiotherapists consume information and what calibre of information we expect to get for free and what to pay for.  Is it realistic to expect that “professor Google” can provide all the answers we seek, with no financial return other than the ability to tempt us with advertising campaigns?  Is Wikipedia, a reliable source of information given the limited editorial control and negligible requirement for corroborative evidence?  Websites which attract high volume traffic with a view to monetizing this traffic do so by ad placement and derive their income on the basis of the ‘click through rate’ on the ads placed adjacent to their content.  The cost of advertising, as in all mediums is dependent on the volume of traffic and the competitiveness of the targeted keyword search phrases.

The current reality has been a rapid evolution of the integration of the World Wide Web into our daily lives.  However, if it is to replace our traditional sources of knowledge such as peer reviewed editorial journals and respected peer postgraduate education training, then we do need to apply some criteria to determine the validity of the content, its authenticity and the reasons for its publication.  It appears that the individual professional journal subscription rates are dropping due to the large availability of institutional group subscription schemes.  The question is whether this alternate method of delivery achieves the same mental penetration which would occur with individuals having their own hard copy of the information to read on a bus, train and waiting room etc.  Maybe this is a generational difference or individual preference, but I think it is still easier and quicker to view a print version of an article (or part thereof) instead of booting up a laptop or being tied to a PC terminal in order to consume.

Regardless of the method of consumption, the key issue remains whether the information is being accessed, processed and retained or are we now operating in a culture of expecting instant access to freely available information on demand and therefore we don’t feel the need to develop our internal database of knowledge with pre-emptive learning?.  Some clinical educators tell me one of the key factors determining retention of knowledge is the process by which the information is accessed, synthesized and processed.  Instant access can equate with instant dismissal and may ultimately not achieve the imparting of knowledge that is retained.

I remember fondly my trips to the Medical Library at Liverpool University (almost daily as a basic grade I have to confess!!), accessing journals and photocopying articles for projects of the time.

Undoubtedly this was far more time consuming than downloading PDF’s but those articles still remain 22 years later in categorised box files.  And yes, they do see the light of day when I need to call upon them.

We are now in an era of information overload with vast amounts of information available for free.  The decision we need to make is whether this information is good quality information and why is it being given away.  We are undoubtedly in changing times with different ways but perhaps it’s time to reflect and take stock.

Before I am accused of being a luddite let me state than I do not swear blind allegiance to the edited journal and the gravy train of non-relevant (funded) research which increasingly fills the pages. This too is the other end of the information spectrum – being dictatorial and non-interactive with the constraints of publication inhibiting expression of ideas. Come to think of it that’s why I started this blog!!

Let us know your thoughts.

Enjoy the clinical challenge.

David.

GHTime Code(s): nc 

Subscribe to the PhysioDigest Weekly Update

Get weekly updates posted direct to your email.

Name:

Email:

Powered by Subscribers Magnet