NYT "Texts Without Context"

"Texts Without Context" Michiko Kakutani, Mar. 17, 2010

The article is thought-provoking in several directions and certainly worth considering. Basically it reviews recent publications concerning the negative societal impact of the web and its effect on our mental absorption of written material, which obviously influences attitudes and actions.
============

AS a moderately "addicted" user of the internet, I'm becoming bored with much that I'm reading and watching. Long ago in say the mid-90s, I became aware that my use of the web was like a never ending hour-glass: I surfed copiously as I explored something new, but then little-by-little narrowed the focus to the bits that served me and then again widened out for the next topic of interest or necessity.

While this habit persists, it has to some extent come up against not a brick wall, but it's opposite—both the overwhelming, unending horizons or more and more material to consider ... and of course, the limits of time to do all that narrowing to get to what one wants or can use.

Let's consider that we seem to be entering a period of transition in web use, for some abrupt, disturbing; for others, challenging and  invigorating. What are the solutions/options?

1. Personal: As with any habit which may become an addiction, there's a point at which most people will say, Whoa, horsey!  and "TMI" in this case.  It's the old pendulum swing phenomenon. After experiencing web exhaustion, the way out will most likely be an increasing search for and reliance on aggregate sites which are relevant to our individual tastes and therefore earn the term "useful."

A recent example for me is the "Open Culture" blog/website, a "quality aggregator" for my tastes and needs. Another is the twitter spin-off of Web2.0Classroom http://twitter.com/web20classroom http://goo.gl/IoZV set up by Steven W. Anderson. 

2. Webwide:  While the volume of sites no doubt will continue expanding with social media and people's willingness to express themselves more and more on the web in personalized forms of websites, blogs, twitter topics, etc., I believe and hope there will be more parallel development of these "smart" sites, designed to help us with the narrowing process and labeled as such.

     News: front and center. As a perceived "victim" of the atomization of information, I hope and believe that news will continue to thrive primarily through local outlets, probably the most relevant for neighborhoods and families.

     Bloggers not withstanding, national and international news will survive, but more and more will have to be related directly to our governing bodies. That means we will have to more easily see and understand why those international stories/issues are important to our lives and our choices of who governs us.

     Just as in my Mom and Dad's time as non-university graduates and working class folk, they relied on the editorial stance of their favorite local paper to tell them whom the best candidates for office were based on local news both daily and investigative, we will more and more (or "once again," if you chose) look to specific "experts" to guide us in choices this time NOT because we don't have the wherewithall to get more information, but now it's opposite, because we're simply overwhelmed with too much to sift through within the time frame of daily life.

      More and more I believe news publishers will have to begin to be more careful in choosing and more explicit in explaining the importance of stories from the rest of the world.  I would not object to subheads: Relevance, Future implications, even the informal So what? as guides to understanding and remembering the relevance what we read. 

Conclusion: From the article: "Given the constant bombardment of trivia and data that we’re subjected to in today’s mediascape, it’s little wonder that noisy, Manichean arguments tend to get more attention than subtle, policy-heavy ones; that funny, snarky or willfully provocative assertions often gain more traction than earnest, measured ones; and that loud, entertaining or controversial personalities tend to get the most ink and airtime."

     Ah, but we choose to be bombarded, we're not "subjected" to anything. We do have choices and we can "just say no."  And do. It will be a matter only of how long it takes more and more people to get to this point.

"...it becomes easier and easier, as Mr. Sunstein observes in his 2009 book “Going to Extremes,” for people “to avoid general-interest newspapers and magazines and to make choices that reflect their own predispositions.”

     Whoaa. Let's go back to Mom and Dad. No matter what they read or heard, they were never ever going to become Republicans. Period.  They were never going to give up their commitment to the working man, which my father was.

Based on personal observation, we are far more influenced by what happens to us, our friends, families, colleagues, neighbors than what we read. Experience felt and related personally still counts. Taxes, wars, health and education reinforce or turn voters when they feel and understand the effects.

All of which is remind that Freedom of Expression and the Press were given us so that we could better exercise our franchise. That vote is one of the three overwhelmingly vital linchpins of our democracy: the vote, freedom of the press and freedom of expression. The pendulum has swung a bit to one extreme. It will return.