Is information too easy to access?

FromTheSouth

You don't want it with me.
When our parents were in our age group, the news came on once or twice a day. People watched the national news, then the local news, and went about their day. We now live in an era where there are no fewer than ten 24 hour news channels. Every issue is debated, analyzed from all angles, and beaten to death. My question to you is this; Do we have to much information available to us?

We can look on the net, turn on a news channel, get text alerts, e-mails, and I'm sure, if you asked, a personal news anchor to ride around with you at this point. The problem is that mixed in with all that information is quite a bit of opinion which all news networks are guilty of pushing as fact. People get mixed signals and start to believe crazy things.

I am in no way for the suppression of any information besides sensitive national security issues. I do not want to close the loop, so to speak. I am just wondering if too much access is a good thing.
 
IMO, it's not so much "is information too accessible?" but rather "is your average viewer/listener capable of filtering it properly?". In either instance I would say the answer is a resounding "no". There's nothing wrong with highly accessible content per se, but quite frankly, it seems information distribution technologies have outpaced our general education/intelligence levels. Taking the most rote information and knowledge then translating it into applicable wisdom is a learned skill that must be honed through practice. Perhaps this current level of virtual information mind rape will force the general populace to pick up the pace on developing such skills. Those who fail to do so will be left behind or suffer from constant paralysis by analysis. A type of forced societal evolution via information inundation perhaps?
 
I think the media has used this access to almost over-debate and perhaps taint many issues and saturate the market-place that the everyday person would normally no real interest in.

Personally, I think there is also an intellectual element to the idea that information is too easy to access. Having so much information at our fingertips should be dawning of the new Golden Age but it is actually having a somewhat opposite effect. It has bred the approach that "I do not need to remember that as I can look it up later." I have seen university students scoff at the idea that they have to read a book over 200 pages in length. They just want a synopsis of whatever subject they are tackling - the wikipedia entry is seen as enough.

To paraphrase, Google is making us stupid
 
I would have to say myself that info is too easy to access. There is only so much people need to know, and there are a lot of things that would be better left out of the public eye. For instance, when Obama gave a withdrawl date of the troops in Iraq, that didn't need to be public news, and should have fallen under National Security information that wasn't to be shared. Now whatever terrorists or whatever are there, know to hide for this amount of time, when we are leaving, and when to come back out and run a muck. That is information working against the right people, and working for the wrong people.

People are too much in other peoples business, and I think that is apart of the information network that need to be hushed a bit too. It's mostly tabloids and stuff I am talking about here. I don't need to know all that shit about those people, nor do I care to know what kind of dress Jennifer Aniston wore to an awards ceremony, or how her relationship with whoever is going. It's a waste of print as far as I am concerned.

Where the access to all this info is a good thing is in a situation like we have right now in the U.S. where there are really conflicting ideas in government being tossed around. Because we were well informed on the matter, We The People, have been able to make a difference in what is and is not being passes as legislation to some degree. If we didn't know that Obama was trying to pass a piss poor healthcare bill that threatened to destroy the private market and socialize it, there wouldn't have been the public outcry of disapproval. There is one group to thank for that too, and that's Fox News.

As a whole I would say the mass communication is a hindrance to peace because people know too much about too many things which given them a million things to bitch about, and disapprove of. Back in the 40's and 50's we weren't glues to different forms of communication all day i.e. Cell Phones, Computers/Internet, Television etc... People didn't know about a lot of the things that were going on and is some ways that was a good thing. I don't want to know every horrible thing about this person or that person. I don't want to be told all the time that my government is fucking me from angles that Steven Hawking is still trying understand. I don't want to hear about this political issue here, or this political issue there. In a lot of ways through the publics embracing all this info they/we have made life much more complicated. Now you see a bunch of horrible shit about everything there is to discuss, or the truly horrible things are encouraged and defended, and we spend our time worrying about it, and pondering the injustices of the world. I say, forget about it. Live your life, and if you find a cause to support go for it, but I don't want to hear about it and every intricacy of it on the news.

If people weren't such busy bodies, and had to be up in everyone's business about everything they do and just worried about themselves things would be much different, and I am willing to bet people would be better for it. Instead every man woman and child has found a false idol in Media, and gives themselves gluttonous helpings of it on a daily basis causing them to live in a reality that they aren't even actually apart of. I think it's kind of sick, and that the media has become too big today, and has too much influence today. Proof positive is the Media getting a president elected who wasn't fit for the job(that's another flaming violation altogether though.)
 
I would say probably yes. And I'm not even refering to the media. I mean, if you hear about someone, if you see someone or meet them, you can find them on Facebook and get all sorts of info on them pretty damn quickly. you can browse their photos, you can see who they're friends with, and if they choose to accept you as a friend, you can just strike up a conversation with a random person. With the whole "mutual friends" thing going on, I think that digging up info on people is immensely easy these days.

How does this bode for society? I don't know. It's certainly easier to meet people, and I would say that, living in such a world where social lives and even relationships can be played out entirely on the web, what we choose to put on something as trivial as the "About Me" section of our facebook page can have huge impacts. Especially on all those stalkers.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,851
Messages
3,300,884
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top