Cutting through information clutter is the communication challenge of the new media age. In our thoroughly saturated world, the more we see reports about changing and escalating events, the more confused we can become. Just when we thought we were beginning to understand, we get overwhelmed and confused all over again.
A case in point is the 24/7 coverage of major conflicts. With non-stop reporting, new developments are always followed with rapid-fire, and often premature, efforts to interpret them. Relentless determination to hold attention produces constant declarations of “breaking news!” Anchors end up over-dramatizing everything just to keep viewers from tuning away.
What’s even more troubling is that a breaking news-driven media can actually become a complicating factor in the event itself. They can become more of a player than observer. For example, when does a constant presence of cameras draw diplomats and policy-makers into even deeper conflict? Can incessant stirrings of emotions make television drama out of serious situations that should require more thoughtful problem-solving and compromise? Would the public’s need to know be better served by reporting developments at appropriate intervals, and by providing more background and context?
This week’s focus on Ukraine is a good example. What do we really know from minute-by-minute 24/7 cable news that we would not know from periodic updates? Has all the drama contributed to solving the problem, or is it just adding needless emotion to an already hostile situation? Does airing the rants of polarized politicians in the middle of such complex events serve any useful purpose?
How, then, do we more thoughtfully go about cutting through all this information clutter? When it’s all said and done, will it necessarily fall to educators and schools to explain the extent to which the digital media revolution is changing everything?
Larry D. Lauer 
Leave a Reply