Archives

Got a theory - see what you think.

Over the last 10-15 years, we have increasingly been getting news from the internet over the traditional media. Wikipedia is a good example - it's quicker and more current, but less credible.

Pre-internet and pre-talkshow, it was more likely our news sources were professional journalists. Now we read more material that not only is more amature, but people intentionally spreading misinformation to suit an adjenda.

On the internet it's easier for anybody to have a slick webpage and spout watercooler rubbish, yet lead some to think it's like the NYT or BBC.

I don't think it's made them more idiotic, I think it's just shown us that a larger portion of the population is stupider than originally believed.

Maybe that does mean they are more idiotic.

Good point, Nevyn - maybe they are just more visible.

I'll add a point that on the net you generally can't see who you are talking to....if it was face-to-face many of the idiotic and antisocial would have been turned out.

On the other hand, it's possible for outfits like NYT or BBC to spout rubbish too. Often to suit an agenda. I like having a variety of sources to check against each other and compare the angles - the truth is often somewhere in the middle.

More good points - Andrew.

Jason Blair's fantasy article did not exactly help the NYT.

In the early days of talk shows, I considered them a good alternative of news as I did not take the national media at face value....all of them seems to have been dumbed down. ;)

I do agree that in general, "discussions" have devolved into much more polar "us vs them" matches. Pick a couple of talking points FOR your side, and a couple AGAINST the other side, and that's all you ever need. No point in thinking after that.

Very much so. There is no accountability as there would be in a face to face conversation or debate. Of course, everything on the internet is true anyway, right? :rolleyes:

Agreeing with above, but the critical dynamic is that internet immersion has been shown to cause initially moderate audiences to polarize and gravitate to isolated, self-referential online communities that fail to challenge their own increasingly fringe beliefs. Communication between these communities is nigh impossible.

Is this situation better than relying on a small, elite group of (genuinely professional) journalists for opinions? In the absence of responsible information consumption, meaning a diversified diet of conflicting, but carefully researched, information sources, or the ability to critically analyze the biases of those sources, I don't think so. The internet hasn't failed the public discourse. The public has failed to use the internet correctly.

This is one of the saddest and most absurd examples of people banging their opinions into "fact": Conservative Bible Project Cuts Out Liberal Passages (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05/conservative-bible-projec_n_310037.html) :mad:

Regardless of what you think of the Bible, this is as deluded as it gets!

This article is just one example of people desperately not wanting to be confused by the facts.

As Jack Nicholson said: "You can't deal with the truth!"

A couple of points.

1) Although the country is divided and more polarized that a few years ago, it is no way near as polarized as it was in the civil war times. We actually fought a war with ourselves and hundreds of thousands of people died.

2) More People today have the ability to be heard. When the country was first founded, you had a couple of choices. Stand on the corner and shout or write it down and distribute printed material. Today there are many ways to let your opinion be heard and many do. So more people are able to get the message out. Some messages that are coherant and some not so coherant.

3) Journalism is no different today then it ever was. It has never been unbiased, it was just that before there were just a few journalists and now there are many. Before if you didn't have the correct agenda, then you were not allowed to speak/write. Now there are many outlets, so more opinions get to be proclaimed, good and bad.

Good point on the Civil War: Preston Brooks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Brooks) canes Charles Sumner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Sumner) on floor of Senate

Thinking back to the 70's and 80's um, discussions were idiotic then too (like Cheech & Chong, man)...this seems to be a continuing pop culture trend though not really an internet trend (think Paris Hilton.)

My recollection of the 70's is that diverse of points of view were represented, not just the elites that everybody gets agitated about. You did have to look a little harder to find opinions that lay outside the range between, say, Paul Harvey and the New York Times. The internet makes the odd stuff easier to track down though.

Overtly hating your political rival seems to be a political entertainment style that became popular recently since the TV political shout shows beck in the 80's. I hope the internet will help the current crop of hater shows (O'Reilly, Beck, Olberman, Limbaugh, others) wither and die.

Another thought - The internet allows for free use of BOLD FONT AND CAPS LOCK. How many people in face-to-face conversation would really start spouting off vehemently at the top of their lungs, shouting and raving their viewpoint?

As Jack Nicholson said: "You can't deal with the truth!"

http://www.youtube.com/v/8hGvQtumNAY&rel=0&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1

IMHO, not being able to handle the truth is at the heart of it. Most of us block the parts of the world that we don't want to see and the internet makes it much harder for us to do that. The reality is that there are many diverse opinions out there and prior to the internet, we could easily avoid the ones we disagree with.

Being a Marine, I can relate to what Jack Nicholson is portraying here. I completely disagree with what he ordered done to the Sanchez, but everything else he said is fairly true. Most of us don't want to know all the details involved in defending our freedom, because many of them contradict our personal beliefs. But there are times when those things are unfortunately necessary.

Prior to the internet, we were rarely exposed to such a wide range of topics, because the professional journalists intentional filtered what they reported on to suit their audience. To be more exposed back then, you had to subscribe to a much wider variety of publications, which was a costly endeavor, so not nearly as many people did it. With the advent of "free" internet access to most publications, gaining a wider variety became feasible. The price we pay for this is that we are also exposed to a wider variety of non-professionals sharing their opinions for a relatively low cost to them. Most of these people believe that they are spreading the truth as they understand it, even though it appears to be misinformation to others.

Being able to separate the wheat from the chaff in this internet era is sometimes more difficult, but it is the price we have to pay for the incredible access to all the information that we have available at our fingertips.

- Rob

Another thought - The internet allows for free use of BOLD FONT AND CAPS LOCK. How many people in face-to-face conversation would really start spouting off vehemently at the top of their lungs, shouting and raving their viewpoint?Occasionally we have members that have screen names in ALL CAPS....one example I can think of suggests he wants to come in and just scream, make like The Jerry Springer Show? :rolleyes:

People are concerned with nuclear proliferation because rogue states like North Korea with them is not a good idea.

Many public places prohibit firearms because there is too much chance a few would put the public at risk.

In real life, if an obviously disturbed person brandished a gun, they would be put in custody - on the internet they often rule. :( On the net, you can't see the face of people that would beg they have issues, nor do incredible charges and slander are given pause as they might face-to-face. For example, they guy that let me drive a Prius for the first time would be a great neighbor, but on a forum was called a blithering idiot several times daily for months. :( If this was face-to-face, would those kind of attacks be condoned?

"Being able to separate the wheat from the chaff in this internet era is sometimes more difficult, but it is the price we have to pay for the incredible access to all the information that we have available at our fingertips."

I'm wondering what kicks off the citizenry into becoming intellectually curious. I don't see this happening, and we're left on our own to develop critical information consumption skills, it's not taught in primary schools, which are still single-source textbook-centric.

Maybe we're just still used to having our information spoon-fed to us by the commercial 4th estate, and approach the internet the same way. A critical skill set for assessing infinite sources may become cultural knowledge over time. But I think I'm being optimistic, here.

... I'm wondering what kicks off the citizenry into becoming intellectually curious. I don't see this happening, and we're left on our own to develop critical information consumption skills, it's not taught in primary schools, which are still single-source textbook-centric ...

I consider the schools as only a "base of knowledge". We parents are responsible for the majority of what they learn and sparking their intellectual curiosity is high on the list for my wife and me. Where the internet is concerned, we give them fairly free reign to go where they want, as long as we know where they are going and that they will ask us questions about anything they find. More times than not, we ask them questions about what they find and let them tell us why they should believe something or not and then give them additional information if we disagree.

We are fairly certain that they are smarter than we are (as hopefully most parents do), but that we have more experience in the world, so that we can guide them through the process of figuring this out. It seem to be working so far.

I think the internet has allowed for more freedom in discussion. Prior to internet popularity most discussions were with people in your immediate circle of contact, ie family, friends, coworkers. Generally these people had similar views, or at least, were understanding of your views because of social proximity and common influences.

Now we can interact with people we may never have direct spacial contact with, who have vastly different customs, opinions and experiences.

It may seem that often conversations on the interweb do get ridiculous but I think that with the freedom of everyone having the ability to voice their opinions we gain a better understanding of the people around us.

I predict that over time, the internet will change all people by the interactions they participate in. Increasing knowledge, improving understanding for all.

For instance within our cleanmpg community there are a lot of professionals and very few pizza delivery drivers. By this interaction the delivery drivers benefit from the vast knowledge of the formally educated and improve their knowledge base, hopefully increasing their ability to interact.

The professionals gain the insight of the less educated and get a better understanding of the obstacles and opinions of those drivers. Sure it may be less beneficial than the drivers experience but it won't make you stupider by participation. Only when no value is gained from either side is it really a useless endeavor.

So assuming that all over the world every interaction passes some amount of information useful or not, eventually the overall average will go up and not down.

Your going to have to wait patiently for the rest of us. We are going as fast as we can! :D - Dale

Godwin's Law was coined because of the cyberdrunkeness - absurd hyperbole of "worst ever" and overmention of Hitler.

Reason I changed my screenname: We had a guy that just insisted on speeding....never dissed him, but he attacked hypermiling and everyone involved with it - very defensive....one of his buddies got mortally offended and before I knew what was going on, just would not talk to me on civil basis - not by my real name...in the context it was:
http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/500/darthVader3.jpg

Ironically, behind the scenes he was the thug he alleged me to be...he got bent out of shape we did not echew hypermilers and bleed for gearheads like his home greenwashing forum.

Readers' choice: Toyota Prius vs. Ford Fusion hybrid (http://www.freep.com/article/20091008/BUSINESS02/910080326/1002/Business/Readers--choice--Toyota-Prius-vs.-Ford-Fusion-hybrid)

Just looking at the headline - it's an apple to oranges comparison...why not Camry vs Fusion hybrids?
Once you click, reader wonders about the disposal of the Prius batteries...obviously has no stocks in nickel. :rolleyes:

Would this topic apply?: mental behavior controlled by feline parasite (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/Story?id=2288095&page=1)

This could explain the cat ladies with 5 to 50 cat's couldn't it? :eek: - Dale

I think the internet has allowed for more freedom in discussion. Prior to internet popularity most discussions were with people in your immediate circle of contact, ie family, friends, coworkers. Generally these people had similar views, or at least, were understanding of your views because of social proximity and common influences.

This could explain why I haven't seen the change as much as others have.

As a military member I am constantly exposed to people from diverse walks of life. We have some similarities due to our willingness to serve our country, but working with people from southern CA to northern NY and everywhere in between does expose you to a wide range of people.

If the military has done anything it has at least given those who served a better understanding of others here in America and those we have resided with in foreign countries. It really impressed upon me how different the world is compared to my little town in NC. Especially the topless sunbathing in Germany! Woo Hoo! And the big beers! What a country! :D - Dale

I'm not so sure. Yeah, the internet's made every idiot on the planet privy to every discussion on the planet, but for the internet I may have never discovered the Libertarian principles and been able to square away my social liberalism vs. my fiscal conservatism...