The Interlocking Public

In The Elements of Journalism (Bill Kovach & Tom Rosenstiel, fantastic book btw) there's a bit about what they call the "theory of the interlocking public". The theory challenges this old-guard journalism assumption that "the people need to know about the important issues", which presupposes that there is such a thing as an universally important issue. This outmoded approach underlies the apprehension journalists have about technologies which increasingly cater to esoteric interests and their despair that the public doesn't care about anything important anymore.

But the interlocking public theory posits that when it comes to a particular topic/story/interest, there are possible three levels of engagement for an individual:

• I don't care at all
• I'm interested/intrigued
• I'm very passionate about it

The beauty of the interlocking public is that in the aggregate all our interests cover the "important" issues of the day. I care very strongly about one thing which you don't have any interest in, and you care strongly about something I care little about. Thus our interests are complimentary and things are ok in the end. That's the theory, anyways.

In the authors' words:

The notion that people are simply ignorant, or that other people are interested in everything, is a myth. ... There is an involved public, with a personal stake in an issue and a strong understanding. There is an interested public, with no direct role in the issue but that is affected and responds with some firsthand experience. And there is an uninterested public, which pays little attention and will join, if at all, after the contours of the discourse have been laid out by others. In the interlocking public, we are all members of all three groups, depending on the issue. ... The sheer magnitude and diversity of the people is its strength. – The Elements of Journalism, pp24-25