Kristof's argument that the demise of print newspapers and the rise of the 'Daily Me' will further polarize consumers of media may not matter much as long as the creators and editors of the CONTENT choose to present (or not present at all) biased content! The mode of presentation is irrelevant, and for my money the quicker the newspapers move to digital, the better.
The problem he describes is shared equally by the creators/shapers of information and the consumers. It has little to do with the method of delivery.
"...That’s because there’s pretty good evidence that we generally don’t truly want good information — but rather information that confirms our prejudices. We may believe intellectually in the clash of opinions, but in practice we like to embed ourselves in the reassuring womb of an echo chamber."
"...So perhaps the only way forward is for each of us to struggle on our own to work out intellectually with sparring partners whose views we deplore. Think of it as a daily mental workout analogous to a trip to the gym; if you don’t work up a sweat, it doesn’t count."
1 comment:
Dear Mr. Usher,
I, too, read Mr. Kristof's column, and it left me puzzled. If it is the case that the decline of newspapers is the result of consumers not wanting "good information," it seems we are left with quite the conundrum.
If the daily newspaper in my corner of New Hampshire -- a paper that touts itself as the most liberal in the state -- is seeing massive declines in readership and ad revenue, what does that say about its readers and supporters, most of whom would describe themselves as liberal? Doesn't Mr. Kristof's argument actually damn those who believe themselves the most refined and selective consumers of news? If, as Mr. Kristof avers, we prefer "information that confirms our prejudices," shouldn't papers that dominate markets of like-minded individuals see an increase in readership? How is it that the liberal Boston Globe is floundering in the "most liberal" state in America? If like attracts like, then the Globe should be thriving.
Perhaps the problem is not with reader preferences but with editorial preferences. Though Mr. Kristof acknowledges his own prejudices, I think he does not quite understand how entrenched his prejudices actually are. A few years ago he drafted a couple of clearly anti-Catholic essays; the naivete and shallowness of his opinions could only be described as stunning. And yet I am quite certain he believes he speaks not only intelligently but authoritatively on such matters, and this despite the objective evidence that he does not. If he and his colleagues would begin to broaden the scope of their own narrowness -- not just in what they read but in what they present -- perhaps subscriptions would increase. As it stands, they have modeled to us all that there are things we can ignore; such modeling can only inevitably lead us to ignore them.
Peace,
BG
Post a Comment