Larry D. Lauer

In a new technology driven and rapidly changing world, it is impossible to be certain about what various segments of the public actually know about extremely complicated world events. Each medium has its’ strengths and weaknesses, and each has different changing patterns of use.

Newspapers are effective when it comes to providing both context and today’s developments. But readership is declining in the U.S. and elsewhere, and literacy is a problem in many parts of the developing world.

Television favors fast paced dramatic images over details and context. Some outlets such as PBS and NPR provide more context than others, but those generally reach fewer people. When television became dominate in the 1960’s, the matter of emotional appeal vs. rational analysis became an increasing matter of concern.

Social media is even more difficult to analyze because its’ use patterns seem to be changing daily. This is not unusual in the history of media.  The new “big things” in media typically becomes fads for a while, and then overtime uses change as people learn about strengths and weaknesses. For example, recent reports about Facebook usage may be suggesting that it’s better for staying in touch with family and friends than it is for handling serious matters. And while some still try to convey serious ideas using Twitter, others are finding that constant following and tweeting is just taking too much time. Twitter clearly is an effective tool for mobilizing people, but many have come to think it’s very weak at providing context for understanding and following the developments of complex events.

All of this seems to reinforce a need for greater “media” literacy among media consumers, including a willingness to seek out various sources of information, and to take personal responsibility for separating fact from fiction.