"The way in which information is exchanged so quickly has forever changed the way in which people want to consume information. They demand that things be condensed into 20 second sound bites. With complex problems this is extremely difficult, but to be an effective communicator and leader you need to be able to condense complex items down to the core and be able to do this quickly."I agree with what Tony Blair says. Yes, the way that information is exchanged has changed forever and yes, people now want their information in a 20 second soundbite. Yes, you do have to be an effective communicator to get your message across, complex or not, in that 20 seconds.
While this change has taken place it is one that I do not feel is a change for the better for our society as a whole. As it stands now, the most effective communicator is now the one who yells the loudest, regardless of whether their message is accurate or not. Take the argument over health care reform. Possibly one of the most repeated messages to to come out of health care reform was the statement by a former vice-presidential candidate that was delivered via Twitter. This person stated, actually restated, that the health care reform bill included government run "death panels." There were no "death panels" in the bill. What the critics were calling "death panels" was in actuality vitally needed coverage for seniors and terminally ill people about end of life counseling, basically, counseling that would aid seniors and the terminally ill in making choices about DNR orders (Do Not Resuscitate), options for nursing home, hospice care, and how to get their final affairs in order. I do not know how getting your affairs in order can be considered a "death panel;" but, the loud voices of the right with their quick, short message caused that vital piece of health care reform to be removed from the bill.
The problem with the speed of communication in today's age is that no one stops to actually research and understand an issue. Whether it be an issue that impacts us on a national level or a local level. Listening to the loudest voice because that is the voice that is more effective at being heard is not a good thing. I know that when I go out to a bar and have a few adult beverages that I tend to become the loudest voice in the tavern. Does that mean that because I am more effective in making myself heard that my voice should be the one that people should listen to? I would say no, the drunk guy in the bar who can solve all of the worlds problems is probably not the guy you want to listen to.
The media needs to stop focusing on the drunk guy at the bar. People need to understand that not every issue can be turned into a 20 second sound bite, and just because someone has turned a complex issue into a quick and efficient statement does not mean that that person understands the issue, has a solution to the issue or even has a clue what they are talking about.
Our nation, and the entire world is at a turning point. We can either go down the road where the information given to us is similar to what was called "Newspeak" in George Orwell's novel 1984. Short soundbites that provide us with really no information at all, or we can demand the press provide us with not just the short soundbites, but, provide us the entire story. Sadly, in a world that is driven by profits, speed and soundbites, I do not see the media doing its job and providing us with the information we need to make informed intelligent choices for the future of our nation and the world.
Mark, I totally see your point, but I guess I am on the opposite end of your argument. Web 2.0 allows me to quickly find out whether something I hear in the media is true or not. Before I had such easy access to info, I more or less had to take a journalist at his or her word. I think that in addition to allowing someone to "shout", our present media also helps us quickly find the one person "whispering" the truth.
ReplyDeleteMy experience has been that people listen to the person shouting and then only seek out information that agrees with the particular viewpoint they want to believe, regardless of whether or not that viewpoint is factual.
ReplyDeleteMark, I agree with a lot of the things you said here, but I do think that the speed of communication in a way forces people to think on their feet. I have engaged in many a Facebook debate where all the participants are firing back rebuttals with online articles to back their stances...all within minutes. So, in that sense there is still logic behind the arguments, not just volume.
ReplyDeleteBut, look at the sources they are providing. Most often they are partisian sources and very biased. How can you have a rational debate with anyone when one side deals in facts and the other side makes stuff up, posts it on a "News Site" and then someone uses it to support an argument.
ReplyDeleteTrue, but aren't partisan biased sources often the substance of many debates? People will use whatever they can to back their point, rational or not.
ReplyDeleteThe substance of debates should be based on factual information. Much of the information that we see with today's 24 hour news cycle is either not factual or mis-represented. If a person cannot back their point rationally, what is the point of having a debate with them.
ReplyDeleteMy husband and I have often discussed how all this 'quick' media leads to a constant state of chaos and intensity. It just seems like streamline media is often looking for the next big story and not always checking facts. And, I guess that is when we try to go search out the facts, but it can be hard to actually find them.
ReplyDelete