You Read What!?

The Internet is, arguably, the greatest achievement of our time. It is the crown jewel of the information age. The presence of the Internet allows for the rapid transmission of information. This, coupled with the expansive reach, allows massive amounts of information to get to more people in a very small amount of time. Most of the time, this is a good thing. Yet, what happens when bad information is spread? Is the Internet to blame? How do we handle this great purveyor of data?

The first thing we must all remember is the fitting cliché “You can’t believe everything you hear.” The Internet isn’t always true with what it portrays. The same is true with all forms of media. Information from all forms is littered with untruths, both the known and unknown. Opinions, though most strive to stay objective, will always influence what we report and how. We must also remember that any business, by design, can not be objective. After all, it’s a business.

Players in the traditional media markets argue that the Internet is unreliable. Perhaps it is. I’ll bet there’s some study out there that’s shown the number of falsehoods found on the Internet dramatically overwhelms that of any other media outlet. That same study would also show the amount of information available on the Internet is far greater than the other media forms. The very people that accuse the Web of spreading falsehoods are the same ones that want to restrict us to their information-for-profit model. They have advertising to sell, after all, and they see the Internet as their biggest competitor.

The Encyclopedia Britannica is a good example. For years they have attacked Wikipedia, their first substantial competitor in recent years. With dramatically more articles available and third-party studies suggesting their facts to be more accurate, Wikipedia has freely offered a better product. All while Britannica continues to charge. It makes sense, then, that the folks at Britannica have made it a habit to attack Wikipedia whenever possible. Those arguments went out the window, though, when Britannica announced they’d be launching their own web site where users could contribute to the articles. I guess they realized that Wikipedia wasn’t so bad, not that they’ll ever admit it.

After all, the Internet is what allows for blogs. Blogs, by their nature of being (often times) simple, online journals, don’t need to jump through the hoops and red tape of the media conglomerates. This allows anyone to post information and report on the happenings of the world, not just the professionals.

So where’s the problem? It’s not with the Internet. The problem lies with us. Many people accept the opinions of another without any question of that person’s expertise. This doesn’t just happen online and the results can be damaging. What do we do, then? We must learn to process information, just as we were taught in school. From High School on, most of us were required to seek multiple sources when gathering information for a report. The same holds true now. There are tremendous differences in the quality, accuracy and style of the sites online, since anyone can contribute. The best information comes from those closest to the source. Television reporters frequently travel overseas. In turn, blogs from the folks affected or involved can add a degree of life and truth that you won’t find otherwise.

Information will always be fallible, regardless of the source. There is no alternative because people are involved and people are fallible. Television and radio require licensing fees and equipment. Print media has large start up costs. Only the Internet allows for the democratic dispersion of information – nearly anyone can blog, comment or edit content in the areas they are interested or knowledgeable about. As the Internet continues to integrate with our lives we will come to learn how to process the information it brings us, both in terms of quality and quantity.

If you like this post then please subscribe to the RSS feed. You can also subscribe by Email.