Thursday, January 14, 2010

From morning until night, every individual is subjugated to overwhelming amounts of sensory input. The magnitude of this torrential influx only seems to grow exponentially as the twenty first century dismantles various informational filters that existed in the past. With the sophistication of the internet and other modern technological advancements, the pool of information readily available to the average person now appears infinitely deep. While these changes are liberating, it is becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate between the "incredible medley of fact, propaganda, rumor, suspicion, clues, hopes and fears." This medley that Lippmann describes refers specifically to the prototypical news gathering agency of his time period (the newspaper office), but almost one hundred years later it has a more universal application.
Now that advertisements and propaganda have penetrated every viable orifice of American society, the distinction between fact and fiction has become slightly more ambiguous. The responsibility of sorting through this olympus sized pile of shit no longer rests solely in the hands of the newspaper office. Since the informational filters of Walter Lippmann's time have broken down, "the task of selecting and ordering that news" bypasses the professionally trained journalist and becomes the responsibility of the consumer himself (or herself).
This startling change in the balance has uprooted the long held practices of journalism, but the "task of selecting and ordering" information is still one of the "truly sacred and priestly offices in a democracy." Its just that now these priestly offices are filled with media illiterate sheep and not trained professionals. Since the task of selecting and ordering information is a sacred one, and the means of doing so are temporarily out of professional hands, this leads one to hope for an increase in public awareness. This kind of educational directive could potentially empower an entire nation of media savy individuals (an effect with profound implications for the journalistic occupation), but until this ideal is reached the custodial obligations fall upon those with a superlative understanding of how our media works.
This quote from Walter Lippmann's "Liberty and the News" almost seems outdated at first glance, but its basic conclusion is still translatable to contemporary society. While the newspaper offices of Walter Lippmann's era are no longer the means through which varying strands of information are injected into society, the task of ordering this information will forever be a sacred part of this functioning democracy. Without the informational filters of Lippmann's era, the monumental responsibility of sorting this news falls directly onto the heads of the public, and yet another Bono like call to increased public awareness must reverberate through American society.

4 comments:

  1. Good post. You certainly took a position.

    I think when your opinions are this strong (and particularly so early in your blog's life), you should identify yourself to add context to your voice. You know what you're talking about, so help your readers understand why.

    Two minor critiques:
    I shuddered when I read about the penetration of society's orifices. Not sure if that was the most helpful visual image to use in this case (I began to wonder: does information flow into or out of our orifices? And which orifice is the Wall Street Journal coming in/out of?)

    The Olympus-sized pile is an interesting visual image, but Olympus in this case would be a proper noun, and using it as an adjective requires a hyphen.

    All-in-all, good first post.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I love that you point out that many of our most important offices are currently held by completely incompetent individuals. One case that jumps immediately to my mind is that of Christine Brennan, a "sports columnist" who works for ABC News among other programs. Recently Brennan caused quite a storm for the asinine comments she made regarding snowboarder Kevin Pierce and the snowboard community as a whole. She has zero expertise on the subject and the network simply used her to fill a void instead of assigning someone qualified to cover the matter. Even if there was no other option and Brennan must cover the story, networks absolutely must make a point of providing her with correct information instead of letting her spill her bullshit to the nation. While this is only one example, I agree that it may be time for a changing of the guards so to speak, and that until networks hire more suitable people for the tasks at hand the public may be left to fend for itself

    ReplyDelete
  3. I very much appreciate this post. You get straight to the point without cluttering up the beginning with meaningless fluff which is the bane of many writers.

    I really agree with your point that the job of "ordering" things in the news is now up to the news consumer. When one sits down to read the news, it can be overwhelming because of all the different sources that throw themselves at one from the television and the computer. I think that you are also right when you state that Lippmann's quote may seem outdated. I think it is a quote that is sometimes inaccurately applied to the field now.

    Minor critique on style: because you don't include line breaks between your paragraphs the ideas sort of mash together and I found it slightly difficult to read.

    Otherwise, really good first post with good imagery and a strong opinion that shows through.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree completely. I wish I could just end my comment there.

    This blog touches on what I think might be the most relevant uses of Lippmann's quote, the introduction of citizen journalism. Now that information is available in an "Olympus-sized pile of shit" in our very own homes, the ones who sort through that shit have become every single citizen who feels like opening a blog. So the function that Lippmann speaks of still exists, if not the means.

    One thing does concern me: with the fall of professionalism in journalism and media, yes there might be more public awareness, but is the information truly reliable? Are the conclusions that the non-professionals come up with going to influence the rest of the input negatively? I'm not so sure that a non-professional media is an entirely good thing.

    ReplyDelete