I love the overall direction the world is taking right now thanks to technology and esp the internet. The world is a much smaller place. We can now have instant commuinication and know what is going on in the world at any given time.
Perhaps its a happy accident that the internet has evolved into a cheap, sometimes free platform for news distribution. We know there are many interests who would love to control, regulate, or even charge for the ability to get this information.
The date that we switched from the industrial age to the information age took place sometime in the late 80's to the early 90's. Some have suggested as a symbolic moment that fall of the Berlin Wall with all that it represents.
However, with the capacity to have instant information, we seem to have bypassed filters that essentially were to ask: "Yes, this is information. Is it true? Is it relevant? Is it in context?"
Today, you can turn on a variety of news channels, which have (d)evolved from reporting news and making the facts known in context to the instant reporting of any information, followed by instant, snap judgment commentary by pundits with vested interest in "spinning" the news instead of reporting it.
To those of us who are used to simply believing most of the news reported, as you could reasonably do when the Brinkley's, Cronkites, and Murrows ruled the world, now news organizations are known for the news personalities. Notice they aren't "reporters". Activist Journalism, (which in my book is different from Investigative Journalism where one has to get off their @$$ and do some good ol footwork) is all about taking news, and offering commentary.
All news channels share blame in this. While I think that the right has done it better and longer, the left is just as guilty for trying to blur that line between reporting and journalistic activism.
It is therefore incumbant on all of us to realize that this is part of the new reality. It doesn't have to be a bad thing. But if the news channels are going to instantly report anything, that doesn't mean that you have to instantly believe anything. Why not wait to make up your mind, instead of being quick to believe everything you read? I am not saying to be cynical and paranoid so as not to believe, just let it air out and age a bit.
Instant news is like instant coffee. It is dehydrated news. It lacks context. Only you and I can add context, which involves a large willingness to be patient before coming to conclusions on some of these stories.
Another interesting development that has happened esp in the 21st century is that of social networking. It started with MySpace, picked up steam with Facebook, and has evolved once again with Twitter.
If you choose to, you and a myriad of acquantences can see all about you, pictures, whats on your mind at the moment, (aka, status updates) etc. No need for privacy. We can just put ourselves all out there.
It's cool, and so many of us jump in, without thinking about the consequences. Workplaces and companies have fired many for posting pics and stories of themselves drinking, or making commentaries that are controversial, or at least unwelcome to the company. Others post pics of you with other people, and depending on who sees it, it can create unforseen problems.
Again, the fact that we can do something and take advantage of technology, doesn't mean we should do it.
To me, these are weaknesses that just need to be thought about. It comes with the territory, and it probably merits our own thoughts for us personally, what we are willing to expose ourselves to, how much of our privacy is up for sale, and how much of it we want to keep.
Times are changing. We all need to keep up.