« Stick a fork in Able Danger? | Main | Marines wanted to surround Tora Bora »

October 07, 2005

Information overload and instant revisionism

I think part of the problem is simply that the only way we can conceptualize information is by fitting it into a certain conceptual frame, and it is a lot easier to pick a frame than to get it right. News organizations lack the resources to cover all the bases, and bloggers lack the objectivity to add new details without expressing an opinion one way or the other. Add a few politicians or talking heads to the mix, and it's hopeless. The cop out solution is the "on the one hand, but on the other hand" coverage we see so much of these days, because there are not enough people with the means or interest to really dig into every story and find the truth - in no time flat. There is definitely demand for that type of coverage, just no supply.

Syndicated columnist Eugene Robinson writes:


The next day I drove into the French Quarter and was struck by how pristine St. Louis Cathedral looked, almost like the castle at Disney World. I got out of the car and walked around the whole area, and I wrote in my notebook that except for the absence of tourists, it could have been just an ordinary Sunday morning in the Big Easy. Then I got back into the car, and on the radio a caller was breathlessly reporting that, as she spoke, a group of policemen were "pinned down" by snipers at the cathedral.

I was right there; nobody was sniping at anybody. But the reigning narrative was Mad Max, not Magic Kingdom. Thanks to radio, television and the Internet, everyone "knew" things that just weren't true.

That was a month ago. Last week the New Orleans story shifted to the other extreme: There weren't but a handful of murders after the flood, about what the city would expect in a normal week; there were no documented cases of rape at the Superdome or the convention center; "hoodlums" in baggy pants helped with rescues instead of hindering them; and most of the "snipers" were stranded people firing in the air to try to attract the attention of helicopters, not chase them away.

I'll bet the truth is more subtle and complicated than either of those extreme versions. It is always so; the path of history is obscured by the weeds of ambiguity. But it used to take a while for the initial version of events to become embedded, and then months or years for historians to come along and dislodge it. Nowadays the 24-7 flood of information gives us the illusion of knowing, then quickly jars us with the revelation that everything we "knew" is wrong.

This isn't a complaint against the media -- what are reporters to do, except tell us what they think they have learned? And it certainly isn't a complaint against information technology, since machines just say and do what they're told.

It's a warning to consumers: You'll sleep better if you remember that the truth is never simple, and that the first story you hear surely won't be the last.


Posted by Mike at October 7, 2005 02:44 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.topdog08.com/cgi-bin/mt-trackback.cgi/815

Comments

I still can't excuse what passed as news during the first week to 10 days of Hurricane Katrina upheaval. Reporters should have been more skeptical of their sources. We have a responsibility to recognize blathering idiots when we see them. Still, the output of blathering idiots was reported as if it were fact.

Posted by: Mac Diva [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 8, 2005 01:35 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?