![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re-posting some of my posts from when I first started on LiveJournal 20 years ago. I'll have more thoughts on this material in another post.
OLD AND NEW MEDIA
The centrally-managed and -edited traditional media (including radio, TV, print periodicals, and books) have nothing to fear from the internet ... provided they do not contribute to their own irrelevance by ignoring it.
The internet is anarchical, and therefore makes great demands on the individual user in terms of critical thinking skills. How do we know to trust a site? We compare information from multiple sources, listen to different analyses, learn to weed out irrelevant input and compare the picture with what we know from our own previous experience.
With the traditional media, this is all delegated to the editor, publisher, producer, or university. Often we have to do this, because the material is specialized or technical in nature, or because individual contributors don't have the credibility to reliably provide the information we need.
But centralized media can serve their own agendas at the expense of accuracy. That's where the supremely democratic world of blogging comes in.
Traditional media still play a valuable role. But they risk abdicating this role if they fail to recognize the democratizing effects of electronic communications.
--
TO A YOUNG ACTIVIST
Keep reaching out to people, quietly but firmly. It only takes one voice to change an atmosphere of conformity. It's hard to be that one voice. But once you make yourself heard, some people will start to question their assumptions.
It's human nature that we don't like to reverse our positions quickly: we don't want to be seen as easily swayed, and we like to feel that we're thinking for ourselves. So give people time to come around.
You and your peers have grown up with computers and come of age with the internet. I am very impressed by the things that people are doing with web technology. Ten years ago [in the mid-1990s], when the web was full of flashy, gimmicky new sites, I worried that the internet would erode literacy. I'm pleased to say I was wrong: the advent of blogging has made literacy more relevant than ever, and has made the open exchange of ideas both fashionable and exciting.
Ultimately our most powerful persuasion is not over the net, but in real life, interacting with our friends in person. That's your most important tool. But don't miss the chance to expose others to this valuable source of information and communication.
--
WHY DO WE BELIEVE WHAT WE BELIEVE?
Why do we believe what we believe? How do we decide what is true, and what is important? Consider the role of the following factors, and feel free to add others:
· internal consistency (details of the narrative agree with each other)
· external consistency (details of the narrative agree with information previously verified)
· insider details (information available only to an authentic source)
· dialog and dissent (narrative welcomes questions and challenges; fosters better understanding among divergent opinions)
· awareness of objections (narrative recognizes legitimate counter-arguments and seeks to refute them)
· nuance (recognition that a proposition may hold true in general and still admit of exceptions)
· the human voice (an intangible quality that may include a distinctive personality, awareness of ambivalence, self-analysis and self-criticism)
Clearly many things have changed since I first wrote these posts, but I think they're still relevant today. I especially want to revisit the third section, "Why do we believe what we believe?".
OLD AND NEW MEDIA
The centrally-managed and -edited traditional media (including radio, TV, print periodicals, and books) have nothing to fear from the internet ... provided they do not contribute to their own irrelevance by ignoring it.
The internet is anarchical, and therefore makes great demands on the individual user in terms of critical thinking skills. How do we know to trust a site? We compare information from multiple sources, listen to different analyses, learn to weed out irrelevant input and compare the picture with what we know from our own previous experience.
With the traditional media, this is all delegated to the editor, publisher, producer, or university. Often we have to do this, because the material is specialized or technical in nature, or because individual contributors don't have the credibility to reliably provide the information we need.
But centralized media can serve their own agendas at the expense of accuracy. That's where the supremely democratic world of blogging comes in.
Traditional media still play a valuable role. But they risk abdicating this role if they fail to recognize the democratizing effects of electronic communications.
--
TO A YOUNG ACTIVIST
Keep reaching out to people, quietly but firmly. It only takes one voice to change an atmosphere of conformity. It's hard to be that one voice. But once you make yourself heard, some people will start to question their assumptions.
It's human nature that we don't like to reverse our positions quickly: we don't want to be seen as easily swayed, and we like to feel that we're thinking for ourselves. So give people time to come around.
You and your peers have grown up with computers and come of age with the internet. I am very impressed by the things that people are doing with web technology. Ten years ago [in the mid-1990s], when the web was full of flashy, gimmicky new sites, I worried that the internet would erode literacy. I'm pleased to say I was wrong: the advent of blogging has made literacy more relevant than ever, and has made the open exchange of ideas both fashionable and exciting.
Ultimately our most powerful persuasion is not over the net, but in real life, interacting with our friends in person. That's your most important tool. But don't miss the chance to expose others to this valuable source of information and communication.
--
WHY DO WE BELIEVE WHAT WE BELIEVE?
Why do we believe what we believe? How do we decide what is true, and what is important? Consider the role of the following factors, and feel free to add others:
· internal consistency (details of the narrative agree with each other)
· external consistency (details of the narrative agree with information previously verified)
· insider details (information available only to an authentic source)
· dialog and dissent (narrative welcomes questions and challenges; fosters better understanding among divergent opinions)
· awareness of objections (narrative recognizes legitimate counter-arguments and seeks to refute them)
· nuance (recognition that a proposition may hold true in general and still admit of exceptions)
· the human voice (an intangible quality that may include a distinctive personality, awareness of ambivalence, self-analysis and self-criticism)
Clearly many things have changed since I first wrote these posts, but I think they're still relevant today. I especially want to revisit the third section, "Why do we believe what we believe?".
