This is like creating a stampede in a Ro herd, then the Oy predatory journalists must keep up the pressure inducing panic with more deception to keep getting prey in the chaos. Sometimes they can hit a ceiling and collapse like Ro buffalo regrouping and then turning on Oy hyena caught by too much bluffing and not enough strength. In the same way some Oy journalists overreach and then are attacked by Ro media and consumer groups, the I-O police can get involved like other animals in the food chain chasing away the Oy hyena. For example this can be like Ro larger buffalo acting like consumer advocates, they take the heat from the Oy journalists while exposing them maintaining some balance between chaos and randomness.
Software as beta means the risk of small glitches; the news as beta means the risk of a false reality.
The poet Hesiod once wrote that rumor and gossip are a "light weight to lift up, but heavy to carry and hard to put down." Iterative journalism is much the same. Its practices come easily, almost naturally, given the way blogs are designed and the way the web operates. It seems cheaper, but it's not. The costs have just been externalized, to the readers and the subjects of the stories, who write down millions each year in falsely damaged reputations and perceptions.
Software is also chaotic in the same way because it is highly deterministic as it runs in lines where one mistake makes it stop. An Iv-B or Oy-R economy seems efficient but this is because the damage is hidden until there is a collapse.
ITERATIVE JOURNALISM IS POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF A belief in the web's ability to make corrections and updates to news stories. Fans of iterative journalism acknowledge that while increased speed may lead to mistakes, it's okay because the errors can be fixed easily. They say that iterative journalism is individually weak but collectively strong, since the bloggers and readers are working together to improve each story—iteratively.
This is innately chaotic and works on the margin where each correction is a marginal change, however VB-I or Y-Ro journalism works by averaging out information with random errors, there is no margin.
Think of Wikipedia, which provides a good example of the iterative process. By 2010 the article on the Iraq War had accumulated more than twelve thousand edits. Enough to fill twelve volumes and seven thousand printed pages (someone actually did the math on this for an artistic book project). Impressive, no doubt. But that number obscures the fact that though the twelve thousand changes collectively result in a coherent, mostly accurate depiction, it is not what most people who looked at the Wikipedia entry in the last half decade saw. Most of them did not consume it as a final product. No, it was read, and relied upon, in piecemeal—while it was under construction. Thousands of other Wikipedia pages link to it; thousands more blogs used it as a reference; hundreds of thousands of people read these links and formed opinions accordingly. Each corrected mistake, each change or addition, in this light is not a triumph but a failure.
Wikipedia is changed on the margin chaotically, someone makes a change and then another alters it. Often these people are Iv-B or Oy-R anonymous, this allows innovation and counter innovation to grow exponentially. The web is then mutating with links like these chaotically, each deterministically changes the next at the margin so average V-Bi information is less common. The result is a network of roots and branches with mutated stories, viral contagions of innovative videos, etc. It grows like Iv-B weeds consuming available resources as controversies sprout then suddenly collapse for a lack of more news or innovations. There is nothing right or wrong with this system, much of it is driven by the exponential growth of computer technology which then feeds into more Iv-B innovation.