Berelson’s piece examining why
people “[missed] the newspaper” during those two weeks in 1945 caught me hook,
line, and sinker. It proved fascinating; my mind constantly compared newspapers
to an equivalent medium most of us use: you guessed it! The Internet! The
points he presented resonated with my daily experience, and I think those of
you reading this as well.
First, the article mentioned study
results of people highly praising newspapers for their value as a “channel of
‘serious’ information” (241). What was so ironic was that the majority of them
were discovered not keeping up with the news they appreciated, simultaneously
enjoying the social prestige that came from reading and appreciating newspapers
(115). It’s intriguing that the
Internet faces many more detractors than newspaper appears to have had, and yet
its presence seems so much more potent. However, people have less or no shame
for not indulging in the same “news” or activity section of the Internet. The
modern medium is so full of options that to expect everyone to use the same
applications and visit the same websites is laughable. It is curious as to
whether people back then would have admitted different reasons for valuing the newspaper
if the newspaper’s options were many times expanded.
Also, participants reported using
newspaper as a “tool for daily living”: financial information, shopping
advertisements, obituary notices, even the weather (118). And yet as I read
this, I could not help feeling like the Internet embodies this “tool” idea
Berelson introduces so well that one could go further and call it a “crutch”
for daily living. Furthermore, his mentioning that newspapers allayed feelings
of insecurity and isolation is clearly seen in the Internet as well. Facebook,
e-mail, and sites like YouTube connect us to enormous communities! This in
itself is truly fascinating because the Internet can also be conducive to
enhancing isolation, but is hailed as such a marvelous technological
advancement.
Finally, the piece bid me adieu me
with a far-fetched wish. I want to (please humor me) conduct an experiment
where the Internet would go down for a period of two weeks. Perhaps just one week.
Maybe a few days. What is the optimal “‘shock’ period” for most people,
especially concerning this source of constant and seemingly infinite
distractions information (112)? Because of the globalization of business, of
technology, and of cultures, observing the mass effects (or lack thereof) of
the event could provide so much meaningful study. What would change? Would
businesses shut down? How would people communicate – texting, snail mail,
calling, maybe even seeing each other face to face? What would constitute
“missing the Internet”? Have we grown so much in love with this technology that
our very lives would be bent out of shape without its presence?
You propose a fascinating thought experiment, Jessica--life without the Internet (or "What the Internet really means"). This may not be entirely outside of the realm of possibility, especially in areas of the world where infrastructure is not as developed or reliable. And even in the United States, given the predicted rise in extreme weather, it's possible that our energy and electricity needs will surpass our ability to provide for them. Think J.J. Abrams's new show, Revolution, or the massive northeast blackouts of 2003.
ReplyDeleteYou make some other excellent points about the Internet's capacity to both isolate and bring together, and its relation to the older medium of print newspapers: let's talk about "whether people back then would have admitted different reasons for valuing the newspaper if the newspaper’s options were many times expanded."