Information is power. But is too much information making us powerless?
More information = less informed. I think we are overwhelmed with data, with much of it being useless. News on Britney's level of crazy changes by the minute. Why? Because we care. But health care, the economy, the environment: we might see one or two stories a week. I've seen more news on the iPhone in the past month than on any other...okay, let's check that on Google News: iphone 16,332 stories
and to compare:
tv 245,878
internet 226,173
hillary clinton 143,245
barack obama 139,194
"super bowl" 106,621
john mccain 105,488
huckabee 76,684
britney 27,748
So it's not as bad as I thought. But this is news? News about a f**king phone earned over ten percent of the number of stories for a leading Presidential candidate. The iPhone is a product; you buy it. Don't make me go off on a rant comparing the plot of The Candidate with today's Internet users being sold candidates as products alongside their commercial products.
I have nothing against the leading candidates for the office of President of the United States. But it concerns me that the Internet can't help to create a popular third party candidate through a grass-roots movement. And if there is one, it just proves my point that I don't know who it is.
The is the first time in 25 years that people are ecstatic with our two-party political system. Is it just a coincidence that with this Presidential election, the Internet has completely absorbed our lives?
In 2004 people used the Internet, sure. But it wasn't until 2006 that "we" became the tremendous assholes we are now; the "we" became so important. Before Google bought and incorporated Blogger into its index, most bloggers were unknown and couldn't be found on a basic search.
Real, useful information gets lost next to press releases and advertising and product announcements, so that I worry for thegeneral public who don't know the difference between knowledge and crap. I believe that corporations control what we see on the Internet more than what we see on television. The FCC has guidelines for what can be shown on television, but no one controls what they do on the Internet. Does so much irrelevant and contradicting information mean there's virtually none?
You say that's our job, as librarians, to educate the public. But how many want to be educated? How many people still come to the desk or call and demand that we type something into Google and tell them what we find? And then blame us for giving them bad information. They define the quality of the search with their request because that's all they know and all they can handle (related story).
The Internet is a tool. Like a hammer. But people understand that a $1 hammer is not as good as a $20 hammer. But they haven't learned that about the Internet. And they need to learn because the Internet is like a Dollar Store and like a university, and they need to learn how to search. And to remember to wear goggles. You know, like with a hammer. Because I wanted to continue the hammer analogy, and you're supposed to wear goggles when you hammer... and when using the Internet... No? Nothing? Forget it. I'm going back to bed.
[Note: Sorry, completely forgot about Stephen Colbert as a third party candidate. Sorry, Stephen. ...and the other also-will-runs who have almost no media support. But since this story is about the Internet, it doesn't matter which candidates I omit... ]
