Lately I've been thinking about the information overload in today's society, and how fundamentally, technology doesn't make getting the truth easier, it merely changes the means by which honest and dishonest folk communicate their messages.
I've been disturbed lately by some of the blogs I follow which discuss the wholesale manipulation of photography in the middle east. This editorial illustrates the concerns rather well.
It's easy for the message - "Innocent civilians hurt by big mean army" - to become far more important than whether or not we're actually being shown truthful shots of innocent civilians hurt by a big mean army.
It's also easy for us to be very confident in our world view, without good support. How do we know what is happening in Iraq? Well, because we have news. How do we know that the news is a realistic or accurate portrayal of the situation? Because they interview a few people? Because all the news reports the same thing? Because the politicians don't dispute the news? Because they quote statistics?
In reality, news can only capture a small fragment of life. The morning newspaper probably doesn't correspond closely to the average daily life. Few of us were murdered, mugged, or subjected to arson in the last day. That's not entirely bad - that's just how news works.
But when we begin to rely on the news for forming opinions, and especially when the news is not even being honest in their reporting of the details, how can we trust our views on situations?
I've been thinking lately about the value of integrity in society, and how it matters for so many jobs.
Janitor? It's a real nuisance when stuff starts disappearing.
Clerk?
Chief Financial Officer? It's a federal diasaster when millions in funds start disappearing.
Auditor? Arthur Anderson...
Reporter?
Photographer?
Diplomat?
Politician?
Parent?
Pastor?
Citizen?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment