This op/ed is heavy with claims and light on proof. Is it anything more than an advert for the author’s book? It seems reactionary for no reason.
A car drives over a bridge, and the bridge collapses. What does the news media focus on? The car. The person in the car. Where he came from. Where he planned to go. How he experienced the crash (if he survived). But that is all irrelevant. What’s relevant? The structural stability of the bridge.
Yes. Humans are fragile and we need to make sure they are not in danger before we then – later – investigate the engineering components. Is there news out there that does not worry about the stability of bridges after such events? The same goes for earthquakes, floods, and the like. First we worry about survivability, and later we look at what engineering worked and which failed.
I also see no need for news to be consumed as unquestionable gospel. The state of U.S. politics has led me to believe that yes, in fact, there are people who DO take it that way, but I know enough people who question beyond the sound bites to think that the author here is overstating the idea that consuming news reduces critical thinking. I do, however, suspect that it is harder to concentrate on heavily linked article than ones that save references for the end.
Anyone try to click the link to the study on how ‘links are bad’ – the link is BAD. I got a 404 (perhaps it is a regional issue?). By cutting out the chunk, ‘magazine/’, I got a working link: www.wired.com/2010/05/ff-nicholas-carr/