07 December 2007

Conditioned to Paralyze ?

For those who consume "news" and "opinion" reports the way teenagers eat potato chips (one after another, as fast as one can, until they're too full for more or the bag is empty), the Internet of the 21st Century is both a blessing and a curse.

Especially considering the modern dichotomy of so-called "left" ('blue') and "right" ('red') winged bias from particular media corporations. (though in fact, they are all but socialist-statists who argue only the particulars of what government programs to incur debts for and by how much, and where citizen's lives should be intruded upon and for what reason. slightly different shades of pink really).

This dichotomy of conflicting reports creates a neverending cacaphony of noise, arguing over "who lied/did not", who should be "crucified/excused", culminating in "what you should believe" from however many different voices you choose to patronize. At least until another story interrupts the combat/spinning, and the process begins anew. (yet thanks to the Internet the battle can and will, always be revisited and renewed)

Dizzying? To say the least.

But there is another unintended consequence to commercially competing and conflicting accounts of the "news" (or "what you should believe"). The process itself has a conditioning effect that paralyzes rapid analysis and nearly destroys "certainty".

Even more disturbing is the idea that perhaps this condition is NOT unintended ?

No comments: