My vocation and personal interests concern the potential of changing lives through information. This is what educators do. We provide access to information and we encourage learners to process this input to develop personal understanding. We know we do not always have the answers to all issues and we do speculate, but we are cautious when doing so. We suggest here are perspectives that some take attributing positions to those who propose them and thus exploring options. We do make decisions not to present some positions, but this is typically when science tells us that some perspectives simply do not deserve serious consideration
This is a book report of a sort. Most comments are based on “The information diet” authored by Clay Johnson. The book explores parallels between our overconsumption of food and information. Sometimes when you get caught up in an interesting analogy you can push the comparison further than is useful. It is true that most of us now have access to inexpensive food and cannot handle this temptation. It is also true that most of us now have access to many television channels and the Internet. We have access to plenty of information. Interesting. So – this is the way the book is organized. I am really only interested in the way the author explores the tendency toward an unwise consumption of information.
My interpretation of the author’s main poins is that we are the source of the failure to benefit from the great information resources available to us. With multiple information sources at our disposal, we select those sources that feed our existing biases rather than those that would challenge and inform. The providers, attending to a profit motive and recognizing that a loyal audience can be identified and fed (sorry – the food analogy works here), offer information from a dependable perspective. The no spin zone actually guarantees that all stories will be spun in the same direction.
The most interesting chapter (perhaps because it plays so well to some of my own observations) examines the history of CNN, Fox, and MSNBC. The story begins in the mid-1990s with the Fox News hiring of Roger Ailes. Ailes moves Fox to the top in the ratings battle. The key Ailes decison seemed to be that the competition among the providers was not about “news” in the way I grew up interpreting the word, but in identifying a core audience and delivering the content as valued by that audience. As MSNBC and CNN began to fade, MSNBC adopted a similar strategy leaving CNN with a declining audience. What Fox and MSNBC recognized, according to Johnson, is that the news is not really about the news. It is about entertainment based on a combination of fear and affirmation. It is about playing to the fears of a given group and offering a spin on information that affirms the perspective of this group in addressing these fears. Of course, Fox and MSNBC are spinning the same stories in opposite directions. The author provides some persuasive examples demonstrating the contrasting titles offered for the same story.
Follow the money. A particularly interesting analysis concerned the budget allocations of the various networks. CNN invests the most in “reporters”. Fox and MSNBC have discovered it is more economical and effective to invest in a few million dollar a year “personalities” than many 40 thousand a year reports (do reporters really make this little money) (the source cited if you really are interested). The strategy seems to be to take a story from the wire service, spin the title in a predictable direction, and have the personalities play off each other saying cute things.
Johnson concludes his analysis with an interesting point. He asks which station we all tend to watch when we really want news. When there is an important event, everyone here and elsewhere in the world tunes to CNN. We seem to know when we need to know and when we want our existing views to be supported.
In a way, it is a depressing situation. How do you get the attention of someone content with feeding a skewed view of the world? How do you argue with someone not willing to engage in a discussion? I have no solutions. As is the situation in this election season, I am mostly interested in the undecided – those who can identify the limitations of an uncritical acceptance of an information source with a perspective. I would suggest that these individuals purposefully consider multiple perspectives on key issues. I am a fan of News360.
I have long valued the Internet as a solution to a wide variety of societal problems. It seems a way for most of us to have a voice and make a difference. Especially in this election season as we are besigned by the hundreds of television ads often funded by those of means, the opportunity to give voice to our own perspective seems of great importance. I guess you just keep making the effort to argue your point of view.