Author Susan Jacoby stirs the pot with an article in this Sunday’s Outlook, contending that the rise of a video culture, the demise of a general knowledge culture, and arrogant anti-rationalism have worked in concert to make America painfully (irreversibly??) dumb.

 

 

I agree with some of her observations -- it is indeed sad that half of 18- to 24-year-olds give not a care to where international news is being made, according to one survey. There is no doubt that an “era of 24/7 infotainment” has eclipsed the value, in many cases, of traditional intellectual development, through reading and healthy discourse.

 

 

But, call me a child of this infotainment era, I have a hard time making a blanket assessment of our culture as dumb because we don’t consume information the way we used to. We are just as smart as our parents and grandparents, we simply learn/consume differently.

 

 

I was just having this conversation (with two separate groups) this week: I admitted that I seem to have a harder time recalling simple dates, facts and figures as I grow older. I am quite certain this has to do with the environment in which I work: in a 24/7 web news world of information overload, my brain makes room for the task at hand by discarding extraneous information that I can easily relocate later. I’m maximizing efficiency by outsourcing data storage to Google and the gang.

 

 

That said, I’m curious what others think about video in particular -- does our taste for video soundbytes and docudrama discourage reading in general? I contend that it doesn’t. The traffic that I’ve tracked on washingtonpost.com indicates that writing/content will be judged and consumed by its merit. Our audience has no problem reading at length, as long as we give them good reason to.

 

 

Incidentally, Jacoby’s article has generated more than 200 comments already on washingtonpost.com (and our weekend audience is typically much lower than our weekday audience). She’s obviously struck a nerve here.

 

-- Amanda Zamora, 2.17.08

 

---

Interesting find. I would agree with your point about making blanket assessments and how today’s generations consume and learn differently than in the past. I do have to say though that if I am faced with the choice of reading an article or watching the same information in video format, I would take the reading the vast majority of the time. I remember fairly recently when CNN.com was reformatting their website, there were many people who posted complaints about the number of video clips in the main headlines without adjoining readable stories. I also found that extremely annoying, and believe they changed it around now so that those videos do have an option for a text story. I’m really not all that into video compared to the amount of outside class reading I do.

 

 

 

It would seem to me that exposure to video and other forms of this new/digital media we have been talking about in class has actually produced a generation (compared to even my parents and grandparents) that is more aware of what is going on around them at a younger age (whether that’s for better or worse) - more aware of issues affecting states, the US, and even world issues/events. Maybe it has come from a background where I did not live my entire life in one place, but rather moved around a couple times and was exposed to different places/people/issues….or maybe it’s just me who thinks this? From the statistics, it sounds like I don’t really fit into a lot of the “blanketing” assumptions being made.

 

Christie 2/18

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

I whole-heartedly agree that we do not read enough as a society and that the consequences are negative.  And by the term “read”, I do not mean skimming the headlines on a website.  I mean to sit down and really read a book or story.  As a child, I was made to read at least thirty minutes a day.  Today, I am thankful for my parent’s value of reading to increase intelligence (including vocabulary and general knowledge).  Today’s technology has allowed people fast news and the latest current events, certainly – and – I also think that is a good thing.  However, It is not just fast access to news that is at stake here.

Brandi 2/18

 

---

 

My worry is that video and other multimedia could potentially make us dumber as reporters. After attempting my first multi-media interviews, I felt more shallow than I’ve ever felt as a reporter. When the video camera was on, I felt myself cutting to the chase, going for the drama and asking simple questions in hopes that my subject would emote for the camera. It was not a good feeling.

 

 

 

In terms of  infotainment vs. reading “real” books dumbing us down, it seems to me that people are more knowledgeable and more analytical than ever because of the Web. However, in terms of intellectual depth, my personal losses are that I have less of an appetite for the literary non-fiction and fiction I once craved. I have to admit that YouTube’s engaging videos have somewhat supplanted those evenings curled up with a good novel.

 

 

 

Also, I find that, in general, the greater strain on the old eyeballs due to near constant online engagement has diminished my appetite for reading books.  Charlise Feb. 20

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

In reading Charlise's last point, I see I agree with her about multimedia's effect on changing habits: But it's not just that I find I read fewer books. As I sit online all day reading and writing, in my off time I like to do something unrelated, such as cooking or running. This means I am less engaged with traditional news from newspapers and TV. I catch my news as I cruise around online and by talking to people.

 

This habit had me favoring a candidate because of what I was getting from casual online reading and YouTube viewing and from buzz and popular perception.

 

So given how my leanings were influenced by this groovy new multi-media stuff, link surfing & old-fashioned word of mouth, I am writing to say I was truly surprised by the results of quiz posted as a link for the class: It was a test from the Washington Post, which guided me through questions on the election issues, allowing me to click a candidate position quote that was the best fit with my philosophy.

 

Once the lengthy series was finished, I got to see which candidate was most in line with my views: The person revealed was not the one I was leaning toward! I was surprised to see who the quiz said I favored by 78 percent. The alternative, who I was nearly ready to cast my vote for, had a 35 percent issues match with my views. 

 

I don't know if multi-media is to blame or not. In a way, it was multi-media that set me straight, or at least gave me a new layer of useful information for evaluating the candidates as we forge ahead towards the election. I can't imagine this sort of quiz being done in pre-Web 2.0. Although it certainly would have be possible on paper, I wonder if there is something about all these new digital possiblities that is provoking a new kind of creative/news delivery competition. Are media outlets trying harder now as they try to keep up in the digital age? It seems that way.

 

Michelle, Feb. 25