One of the topics discussed during this weeks seminar was quality of information vs quantity and how it has affected our society.
The specific example which led to it was Titanic. More specifically that there has been many disasters with a greater negative result, yet it continues to be one of the most memorable. The discussions didn't aim to prove that it doesn't deserve it's place in the history books, but rather as an example of the difference in the flow of information we have today versus 1912. As the Titanic was one of the first disasters covered in mass media, it had more room, as the media landscape wasn't as saturated as it is today.
My view on the whole question is related to the "stupidification" (if this word didn't exist before, it does now) of the mass media scene discussed in this weeks literature. While the media landscape has grown by ludicrous amounts, our attention span has remained more or less the same (whatever one might say of ones ability to multi-task or whatsoever). So, since we're constantly bombarded with information daily, every piece of information gets less room, leaving weaker impressions in the long run. It doesn't mean we care less, just that unless one gets real passionate about a certain topic, that topic will sooner or later get replaced by one of the other hundreds of topics we are bombarded with.
So who's responsible? Is it up to the consumers to demand a greater variety of media content through the big channels or the producers and the distributors who sit on the power but don't use it to its fullest potential so to say.
I found it fascinating how a text written 70 years ago still feels relevant. Although I have to admit I don't see that it necessarily will be in another 70. Although the authors more or less describe the situation we have today, they don't mention the fact that we today consume some media "passively" by having the tv on in the background, listening to music while doing something else and so on; as well as the way the communication between the producers and consumers is shifting from one way to two-way.
So who's responsible? Is it up to the consumers to demand a greater variety of media content through the big channels or the producers and the distributors who sit on the power but don't use it to its fullest potential so to say.
I found it fascinating how a text written 70 years ago still feels relevant. Although I have to admit I don't see that it necessarily will be in another 70. Although the authors more or less describe the situation we have today, they don't mention the fact that we today consume some media "passively" by having the tv on in the background, listening to music while doing something else and so on; as well as the way the communication between the producers and consumers is shifting from one way to two-way.
I agree with you that now we have a lot of information around us and I think that it changes the way how we thing and reflect on news. But it is really interesting to imagine what we will have in future. Will the information flow become more and more heavy? Or maybe we will find some ways how to resist it?
SvaraRaderaThe information overflow we live around today is huge, and I agree the "stupidification" makes us take in a lot of information that more or less could be considered as crap. But what is the alternative? That someone choses what kind of information we should be exposed to? We would fortunately be able to censor a lot of spam and redundant information, but to what price?
SvaraRadera