When the epic Tom Waits epically interviewed himself, he was asked (by himself) what was wrong with the world. To himself he replied, "We are buried beneath the weight of information, which is being
confused with knowledge; quantity is being confused with abundance..."
'Ole Tom said a mouthful. This sage observation can be applied broadly to many things, but specifically it brings to mind 24 hour news coverage. Even more specifically, it can be said of election coverage in 2008, a year still fully embedded in the "Information Age." In many ways, the internet has made it more treacherous to be a politician than ever before. Anything you say can and will be used against you (on youtube) and will be commented upon by legions of disgruntled web surfing trolls (again, on youtube).
Recall George Allen's "macaca moment" which single handedly derailed his campaign. This world in which every second counts has forced politicians to become slicker than ever in their public appearances which could be good or bad depending on how you look at it. But, in effect, we all lose out when politicians are hijacked by their own sound bytes.
The average citizen pursuing election coverage online is typically met with a barrage of sound byte headlines or pulled quotes and in many cases, flat-out irrelevant controversies such as the recent "Palin Pregnancy Conspiracy"
Despite the tired old argument of the bias found in CNN or Fox or wherever, the web has made it even easier to narrow one's scope to their own particular view. If someone were to solely view Huffingtonpost.com day after day, they would have a very different version of events that is tailored to very specific tastes. The internet, like many things in this world, is a very powerful tool when used judiciously. Subscribing to sound bytes with no depth and following sites that only affirm our currently held beliefs are just as bad or even worse than not being informed at all. We have a responsibility to follow 3 "D's": Diversify our browsing for variety of coverage, Demand better, more in-depth coverage from our sources and ultimately Decide for ourselves what content we should retain to make informed decisions.
The future of democracy in an information age will ultimately be decided by just how responsible we, as citizens of the state, can be with the abundance so that we may (as Mr. Waits encourages) sift out the knowledge.
'Ole Tom said a mouthful. This sage observation can be applied broadly to many things, but specifically it brings to mind 24 hour news coverage. Even more specifically, it can be said of election coverage in 2008, a year still fully embedded in the "Information Age." In many ways, the internet has made it more treacherous to be a politician than ever before. Anything you say can and will be used against you (on youtube) and will be commented upon by legions of disgruntled web surfing trolls (again, on youtube).
Recall George Allen's "macaca moment" which single handedly derailed his campaign. This world in which every second counts has forced politicians to become slicker than ever in their public appearances which could be good or bad depending on how you look at it. But, in effect, we all lose out when politicians are hijacked by their own sound bytes.
The average citizen pursuing election coverage online is typically met with a barrage of sound byte headlines or pulled quotes and in many cases, flat-out irrelevant controversies such as the recent "Palin Pregnancy Conspiracy"
Despite the tired old argument of the bias found in CNN or Fox or wherever, the web has made it even easier to narrow one's scope to their own particular view. If someone were to solely view Huffingtonpost.com day after day, they would have a very different version of events that is tailored to very specific tastes. The internet, like many things in this world, is a very powerful tool when used judiciously. Subscribing to sound bytes with no depth and following sites that only affirm our currently held beliefs are just as bad or even worse than not being informed at all. We have a responsibility to follow 3 "D's": Diversify our browsing for variety of coverage, Demand better, more in-depth coverage from our sources and ultimately Decide for ourselves what content we should retain to make informed decisions.
The future of democracy in an information age will ultimately be decided by just how responsible we, as citizens of the state, can be with the abundance so that we may (as Mr. Waits encourages) sift out the knowledge.
