Better off or not?

[essequamvideri 0]

My wife was born and raised in Lewiston Maine and on the other side of the river in Auburn was where I grew up.  We still have families in the area and they are all physically safe but dealing with the aftermath of this mind numbing event. 
 

My wife has been glued to the computer scratching at every piece of information as it comes along. 
 

Some thing I was thinking,  we grew up when there were 3 forms of information available for such tragic events. Tv, radio and newspapers. Today we have the computer with all its resources. 
 

The question I have “do you think it is better to have a limited amount of resources for information or an unlimited amount of resources?

 

Michael

[cphubert 0]

Michael, I think that we are pushed into overload with the 24/7 news cycles, and it is taking a toll on our society. I strongly refrain from any political views on this forum, but the division is feeding on this country and the algorithms on social media are the worse, "news" media a close second. I hope this post does not open a can of political worms. Glad to hear your family members are safe and praying for the ones that were not so fortunate.

Chris

[essequamvideri 0]

Cphudert,

Thank you for your sentiments. It is truly appreciated. 
 

As soon as I hit the send button, I realize the potential it had to bring up the “political divide”. This was the furthest thing from what I wanted out of this.

I am with you that there is a lot of narrative truth or otherwise on line. 
 

I guess a different way to ask

”do you find it more or less, better or worse, satisfying or irritating to have this information at your fingertips?”

Cheers

Michael

[cphubert 0]

Irritating -breaking news is always welcome but having the ability to search and fixate on depressing information 24/7 can not be healthy. But I am a not a social media user and try limit my exposure to the TV news usually listen to the radio broadcasts.

[flytire 0]

2 hours ago, cphubert said:

I hope this post does not open a can of political worms.

 i'll guarantee it will not

politics and religion are not part of this forum

[chugbug27 0]

Michael, what an awful thing to be going through. I hope it's over soon.

On your question... 

I think computers make the world a much, much smaller place. And that's a mixed bag, for sure. I do like being able to find out what's happening fast, get answers fast, learn anything I want to learn, any time I want and at my own pace, and I like how easy it is to share information, and I also like that if I'm sick of it I can just not engage and go back to my surroundings, daily life, etc. It's completely possible to disengage from the computer and nothing bad happens, except maybe at work if work requires it. And sometimes it's not so easy to disengage. 

The Information Age has not eliminated misinformation, which is something of an understatement. Which can be maddening. But to me at least, the truth of that is, we've always needed to be discerning about what we believe to be true, and I think we all try our best to do that. 

When it comes down to it, I don't think computers are actually so much different in that regard. Newspapers at the grocery store have been selling tales of alien abductions since I was a kid, and I don't think I'm any worse for the wear because a lot of people like to believe things I think are foolish. (I'm sure others feel the same about some of my beliefs.) On the dangerous side of that equation, McCarthy happened without computers, so did Hitler. So did the Inquisition (even without TV or radio, just with the bible of all things), the cultural revolution in China, witch trials in Salem, etc., etc. All built on misinformation, but we survived. At least some of us did.

In the end, no man is an island, with or without computers, and every man still keeps his own house in order.

I hope I'm right about that. Some times I'm not so sure.

[flytire 0]

1 hour ago, essequamvideri said:

As soon as I hit the send button, I realize the potential it had to bring up the “political divide”.

 i'll guarantee it will not

politics and religion are not part of this forum

[essequamvideri 0]

12 minutes ago, flytire said:

 i'll guarantee it will not

politics and religion are not part of this forum

Thank you for being here. 

[Poopdeck 0]

I haven’t watched the news in decades. I don’t google search news. Headlines, clickbait and snappy photos don’t capture my attention even a little bit.  I just learned of the recent tragedy at lunch today when others were talking about it. It’s very sad but these events will continue as long as society points the blame in the headline grabbing, clickbait,  snappy photos direction. So I guess I’m saying we are worse off. 

[Ephemerella 0]

Unlimited resources.

But...

20 hours ago, chugbug27 said:

The Information Age has not eliminated misinformation, which is something of an understatement.

What I found with that most recent tragedy in Maine, was that once-reliable news outlets (including those that publish exclusively on the internet) were so rushed to be "first with the story" that they published erroneous information. It would appear they sacrificed fact-checking for expediency (and probably advertising revenue). Some of the errors should have been caught by anyone with a modicum of experience or education or familiarity with the location.  Further, other news outlets would republish these erroneous items, no doubt using the fact that someone else published the (erroneous) item as confirmation.

Now here I sound like an old curmudgeon. This is a real deterioration of news media. I note this is independent of the political leanings of the various news outlets. My father spent his career in the news media business and to him it was important that the reporters and editors were able to substantiate the facts as published, both as a business strategy (keeps away expensive litigation) and as a way to maintain the reputation and integrity of their news outlet.  I'm guessing today's news media is more concerned with short term profitability than long term reputation and survival of the business. 

As a consequence, while there is more information available, it is less reliable. Also, since it may be difficult to trace the source of the published information, one cannot easily discern whether any report is from independent sources or independently collected information, or is re-publication of someone else's erroneous report.

Not sure what the solution is here, other than to not believe everything published until there are sufficient number of independent sources stating the same information.  That, and, of course, not buying products advertised on outlets with unreliable reporting. 

 

[Trouttramp 0]

23 hours ago, flytire said:

 i'll guarantee it will not

politics and religion are not part of this forum

Thank you!

I enjoy having sites that are removed from those things.  
 

Thank you.

[chugbug27 0]

3 hours ago, Ephemerella said:

What I found with that most recent tragedy in Maine, was that once-reliable news outlets (including those that publish exclusively on the internet) were so rushed to be "first with the story" that they published erroneous information. It would appear they sacrificed fact-checking for expediency (and probably advertising revenue). Some of the errors should have been caught by anyone with a modicum of experience or education or familiarity with the location.  Further, other news outlets would republish these erroneous items, no doubt using the fact that someone else published the (erroneous) item as confirmation.

The one time I was involved in an event that was reported on, I also was surprised to see just how willing the paper was to report the story in depth without having any real handle on the actual facts. I chalked it up to it being a big enough story to attract attention but too small a story to garner serious reporting. I suppose that might just be wishful thinking, but I do like to read the paper and see what's happening in the news. A lot of the time when stories break, maybe most of the time, I think reporters do scramble and facts get misreported.

I also worked as an intern reporter for a very short time after high school, and decided it was not my cup of tea. A local scandal broke and the editor said to me, this is what reporters live for. I had no stomach for it, personally. 

I'm sure I don't need to tell you, but to me that's where something like fishing, or fly tying ,or woodworking I'm sure, which has a totally different pace and purpose, can help restore some sanity. So if you haven't already, maybe take your wife fishing, tie some flies, get to the wood shop. 

[chugbug27 0]

20 hours ago, Poopdeck said:

I haven’t watched the news in decades. I don’t google search news. Headlines, clickbait and snappy photos don’t capture my attention even a little bit.  I just learned of the recent tragedy at lunch today when others were talking about it. It’s very sad but these events will continue as long as society points the blame in the headline grabbing, clickbait,  snappy photos direction. So I guess I’m saying we are worse off. 

You know, pd, we're very different in this particular way, but I do get what you're saying and I don't think you're wrong.

[vicrider 0]

I had to google what this post is about. Terrible news but similar to Poopdeck I have given up being a newshound. I used to watch a few hours of news everyday but at my age it has become too repititious and headline and sponsor dollar mongering and I just can't digest daily news anymore. The talking heads on most channels are there because of good speech and attractive looks and the ability to read a telepromptor smoothly. Days of Walter Cronkite and Tom Brokaw are gone.

In relation to this OP I am glad your family is all okay and what can stop a person doing what was done is an answer our country cannot seem to find. Any more of my thoughts on some of these things would surely bring the mighty hand of flytire down on me and he and Sasquatch are formidable defenders of the forum for us.

[flytire 0]