I have been thinking a lot these days about information overload. Do we just have too much information too soon? How can a reporter on the scene of an event report unbiased information if they are required to instantly give news without a bit of thought or editing. The tragic case of the Florida shooting is a good example. We were told one set of ‘facts’ moments after the shooting, and as other ‘facts’ came to light, the incident began to take on a different hue. Those that heard the first reports but no follow up think one thing, others now think another. And who is right?
I have been here in he UK since Saturday and basically cut off from my normal news sources. The internet is ‘dodgy’, I don’t read the local papers, there is not TV in my room. So I don’t know what’s going on. Is my life better or worse for that.
When I return home on Thursday, I can catch up, but will I feel more ‘complete’ knowing what this or that politician said, or what this or that bimbo did or didn’t do, or whether or not global warming is now climate change? What can I do about it anyway.
I was discussing this at lunch yesterday and a fellow at the table said:
Information should be like food — we should get a small amount several times a day.
I understand his point.. Maybe a bit when we get up so we will know whether or not to wear a sweater, a tad more at noon so we will know where the traffic is or is not, and a bit more in the evening. Fair enough — in most cases his list are things that affect our lives directly, traffic and weather.
The rest – I’ll wait until the book comes out.