I came across this article in NY Magazine - an eight page piece titled "In Defense of Distraction." In it, Sam Anderson discusses how new technologies - everything from Twitter and tabbed Internet browsers to your Blackberry or Flickr page - have significantly affected our attention span. Well, I'm sure this is not too surprising considering I have five tabs open in my Firefox browser right now and I'm balancing this blog post with two Gtalk conversations and refreshing my work email.
Sometimes I forget how dependent I am in using some kind of digital tool to do pretty much everything in my life - work, socializing, research, shopping and everything in between.
Anderson states, "Adopting the Internet as the hub of our work, play, and commerce has been the intellectual equivalent of adopting corn syrup as the center of our national diet, and we’ve all become mentally obese."
He spends a good amount of time discussing how we should adapt to the overflow of information. While much of his analysis focuses on psychological implications and solutions, the premise of his article raises an interesting question: how do we keep up?
We're clearly in the midst of a multimedia frenzy - new avenues and tools to communicate and receive information are constantly appearing. These tools, coupled with a superfluous amount of information, make it extremely important for media professionals to create strategies that will adapt to the shortened attention spans of the digitally connected generation.
What do you think? How are our shortened attention spans affecting not only how we retain the news, but how news is communicated to us? Is this why sites like Twitter are popular? How should media organizations adapt to this undeniable trend?
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I love -- LOVE -- the analogy of our Internet absorption being similar to corn syrup as our national diet. I didn't even have to finish The Omnivore's Dilemma (for a previous G'town class) to understand how corn has revolutionized (that is, perverted) not just our own diets, but cattle's as well. In a sense, cattle -- and we, to a lesser extent -- are not even supposed to eat corn; we're not made for it. Which makes we wonder if we're supposed to consume so much of the Internet. Internet obsession makes for a more sedentary life style, and having gobs of questionable information at your easy disposal might also make one "mentally obese." Working for information might make one exercise more mentally and develop a more nimble mind with discernment and judgment. At the extreme, shutting off the Internet altogether would just about force one out into the world. I'm not sure if this is apropos or not, but I've gotten into the habit of walking around my neighborhood almost every day, daughter slung across my chest. I don't have to read the neighborhood listserv or our many blogs because I literally see what's going on with my own eyes. Lately I've been reporting things to those outlets. It's much more real and satisfying.
ReplyDeleteNisha--what an interesting article. I definitely think the immediacy of the internet and the passive nature by which we obtain information via Twitter, news alerts, etc. has an effect on how we retain news and other information. I've noticed that I have begun to use Google searches, gmail's unlimited storage, etc. as way of skipping the need to retain certain types of information--why bother trying to remember something if you can get it in an instant on the internet.
ReplyDeleteNisha, great article. I love the Internet. I don't think I could live without it, and at the same time I'm aware it has made me so lazy. But even worse is the fact that, while trying to absorb a little bit of everything, I feel I'm not an expert on anything. It's so hard to keep my focus with so many links, and pop out windows, videos, gadgets, etc.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think the Internet has made us mentally obese, but it makes things (like research, shopping, work, etc.) so much faster that it frees up some time to practice some hobbies that exercise our brains. Unless, of course, you turn on the TV after you shut down your computer.
I read this article too. I've read several articles that get at this thesis and...I don't know that I agree in a generalized sense.
ReplyDeleteI certainly know people who have fragmented their attentions to an extreme degree, but I'm not one of them and I multitask more than your average bear. I thrive on the different sources of intellectual stimulation. I subscribe to 108 RSS feeds through google reader and I sift through almost 1000 posts every day. I OBVIOUSLY don't read them all word for word, but I get at least a thesis idea from the grand majority of these posts.
What I've noticed, to address your question about what media orgs should do, is that I tend to skip over news sources that are repetitive. There were tons of articles that told us that Obama nominated Sotomayor. I read the first one I saw and deleted the rest.
I DID, however, read almost all of the opinion pieces and features that added value to the core story of her nomination. I read profiles, op eds, critiques and anything else that gave me more outside of the story that EVERYONE and their mom's blog had.
That's what we need to do as journalists. We need to anticipate that needs and interests of our readers and avoid pummeling them with stories they don't need.