Here’s a great article from The Atlantic which asks if the information we’re receiving in such short bites (or should I say, bytes?) is lowering our ability to process longer information, like books.
I’m concerned on another level: a lack of critical examination of the many “facts” posted online.
A generation ago, our news came from sources that tended to have more than one person looking at the facts. All but the very smallest media outlets had writers who were checked by editors, editors who were checked by other editors and, in some cases, editors who were checked by management or attorneys or others. Today, technology has made it simple to publish or broadcast just about anything. In the eyes of far too many, that story is suddenly “fact.”
As an example, I’ve received more virus warnings over the years from well-meaning friends via email than I can count. I also remember an email I received several times that stated with absolute certainty the U.S. government was going to start taxing email to make up for the lost revenue of postage stamps. How about the one in which Bill Gates was going to personally pay you for every email you forwarded? Harmless stupidity, really, but too often, that’s about the same low level of critical thinking that goes into what we read on blogs, online or even in the mainstream media.
To be clear, the media establishment is far from perfect. It was the blogosphere that caught Dan Rather’s sloppy reporting. In the end, that’s the dilemma — who should we believe?
Personally, I hope the community will become self-healing. If someone gets a fact wrong — whether you’re a random blogger or the New York Times — your mistake will be outed by others. In the meantime, critical thinking and the outlook that any article, regardless of the source, is a data point and not the gospel, could very well be the most important skills we can develop and teach.
0 responses so far ↓
There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.
You must log in to post a comment.