Koppel summarizes the new media and Society

I have been reading a really interesting book called "The Shallows" by Nick Carr. Like Azrael, Carr acknowledges that all of this was said about every new medium through the ages. But he also notes that people were right - every new medium DID alter the way we consume information.

Carr basically says that the Internet changes the way our brain processes information. Faster, faster, FASTER!!! Link, link, LINK!!!

That doesn't mean it's a worse way to consume information. Some people, including those he interviews for the books, including some prominent academics and brain researchers, like it better. They say that they can learn about more topics faster now.

But don't think for a second that there isn't a tradeoff, which is our attention spans and ability to read deeply for extended periods of time.

Which sounds a lot like this: "Rather than using information to illuminate the world, though, we consume it like fuel. The more we burn, the faster we go. The faster we go, the less we see and understand." - Ted Koppel

 

Sure there's a trade off. But we're never really quite sure what it is or what it means.

E.g., most people had lousy attention spans, and most people in most places weren't reading 'deeply for extended periods of time,' before this latest wave of information technology arrived.

Is pushing more information out to more people faster perhaps better for us all rather than worse?

 

Yes, and look at the sad state of the non-profit television network that gave us three of those good things.

PBS has been a terminal patient since the '90s.

 

It just depends on what your values are. If you like to consume lots of information faster, if you like access to more information, it's better.

Just to look at it from a sports point of view, I was looking at an old Willie Mays baseball card I have the other day. It's astounding what information the back of the card lacks compared to the stats and scouting reports you can dig up today on players. I know way more about baseball today than I did when I was younger, even though it doesn't feel like it, because I realize that there's always more out there. Twenty years ago, if I knew Nolan Ryan's ERA and Cal Ripken's batting average and could name three or four prospects, I was pretty much a baseball 1 percenter. Today, I'd get laughed out of the fantasy draft room or the MLB Network analysis set bringing that weak shit and trying to call it knowledge.

That said ... if your value is reading "Hamlet," then this isn't necessarily great for you. Many college professors have gone on the record about how difficult it is to get students to read long passages these days. I notice it myself, how much more difficult it is to stay focused on a long read sometimes.

Again: This isn't necessarily bad. It's just different. It's in the eye of the beholder. You have to weigh the costs and benefits.

 

I'm as much of a luddite as anyone, but I don't think the speed of the internet is driving our increasing lack of public engagement.*

It's certainly reflecting it, though.


* -- we could look at the causes behind that trend, but who has time to read through a well-thought argument?

 

In some ways, it's probably contributing to public engagement. People have places - like this one, for example - to talk politics and civics with fellow informed and passionate citizens. Beats the water cooler.

 

You may be right, but what I meant was the internet's ability to ignore "news" and offer in its place porn, trashy celeb gossip, sports trivia, etc. isn't the main reason so many people are ignorant and/or could care less about civic affairs.

That trend was in place long before internet use became widespread 15-plus years ago. As Koppel said, the internet just makes it easier to get what we "want" rather than what we "need."

 

The current media landscape is simultaneously fractured and in the grasp of a few mega-conglomerates. Deregulation and concentration of ownership has not helped our society one iota.

 

The sports thing is kind of strange. This isn't the first time I've seen it grouped in with everything else as a trivial interest indicating the decay of society. I think someone included it in their laundry list in the comments section after an online Atlantic piece the other day about students having cell phones in class.

I just don't quite feel that way about sports, although I know IJAG and others on here have argued vigorously that it is just as trivial as reality TV and other so-called trash culture. I feel really engaged with the strategies in sports, both in-game and franchise-building, not to mention the cultural history significance. It just doesn't feel like it belongs on the list of brain rot culprits.

 

I'm personally frequently torn on how to follow current events.

Should I try to keep up with the news in general each day - know the basics about what is going on in the country and the world?

Or should I use my time to know a few subjects really in-depth? (Baseball, health care, global warming, the presidential race, etc., etc. Pick your poison.)

 

FWIW, the entire transcript is here.

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/05/newsman_ted_koppel_calls_on_gr.html