Reading more but learning less
The New York Times’ Room for Debate asks:
In the Web 2.0 age, when many Americans see hundreds of articles every day, are we more informed than previous generations were?
Six articles, from a variety of writers of varying backgrounds. The consensus is not surprising:
- Information was more highly sought-after when it was rare
- It’s easier to be misled or to mislead others
- Having information is not the same as being informed
- The pool of data is bigger, but few choose to dive in
- The importance of the ‘front page’ has decreased
- We’re stuck at the same level of ignorance
I like the Room for Debate format because it explores a topic from multiple angles with thought-leaders and experts. But in this case, the only angle is from the lens of old-school journalism, which is disappointing.
It’s ironic that the NY Times created the same kind of echo chamber that many Web 2.0 communities are known for. I can’t help but think it would have been interesting to see what writers who are optimistic about the web could have contributed to the discussion.