This is a question I have often asked my book editors over the years. Did your changes make my work better, or just different? Just different is always upsetting. Now I find myself asking the same question about changes in the way most of us receive information about the day’s events.
For example, when I follow my favorite reporters on Twitter I am getting observations about a variety of events all day long. But I also can go to the electronic or print version of their news publication or website, find their columns, and scan their best material. Granted, there might be a few more details embedded in their countless tweets, but at the end of the day did I really get more and better information? In other words, was “following” them better, or just different?
Back in the day of the newspaper, if you had access to both a morning and evening newspaper, listened to a wrap-up on the radio in the car, and then watched the day’s summary on television, you could ask the same questions. Was it better? Or was it just different?
Conventional wisdom suggested that the digital world would provide information faster and more efficiently. And potentially it certainly can. But if you spend all day watching CNN; or tweeting, retweeting and following others on Twitter; or interacting with multiple followers on other digital media platforms; are you getting better informed, or are your methods just different?
I am convinced that somewhere in this deluge of media options there is a combination that can result in time saved and better information. But I am also convinced that few of us are managing our media engagement well enough for this to actually happen. In fact, I am betting that most of us are wasting too much time following too many people and organizations on too many media platforms. And then most of us proceed to make matters worse by choosing outlets that only reinforce our biases!
So when all is said and done, how are we really doing so far? Are we better informed… or is the digital world just different?
Leave a Reply