COLUMN: Being ill-informed and judgmental define the aughts

Wednesday, December 30, 2009 | 12:01 a.m. CST

COLUMBIA — Some of the funniest parts of an Esquire magazine appear in the section featuring readers’ letters. Besides the normal comments, here are select excerpts from a few letters appearing under the title, “Context-free highlight from a letter we won’t be running.” An example from the January issue: “I woke up at 6 A.M. just to brush my teeth.” We don’t know who said it or why, and there in lies the entertainment. 

Now, these miscellaneous blurbs are completely innocuous, but what’s rather disturbing is that the moniker “context-free” could easily be used to describe the entire past decade, or at least the way society is trending. Look no further than the ubiquitous end-of-the-year/decade lists and retrospects currently plaguing the Internet.

Although their purpose is to encapsulate the zeitgeist of 2009 or the entire aught decade, they, in all of their arbitrariness, are actually the past decade in a nutshell. We are a nation that thrives on lists, blurbs, slide shows and headlines. Whether they be for entertainment or news, from these, too many people glean just enough information to over-confidently base their more-often-than-not hollow opinions. Seeking out in-depth analysis and context is so '90s.

The turbulent state of professional journalism is the greatest indicator that context has taken a back seat in our society — and at the worst possible time. The Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism outlines nine principles of journalism, the first being to the truth: “As citizens encounter an ever greater flow of data, they have more need — not less — for identifiable sources dedicated to verifying the information and putting it in context.”

Primarily, Webster’s defines context as “the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning.” Although this certainly is correct, the secondary definition is a little broader and applicable to a larger conversation than just the words in a sentence and the clues surrounding them. This definition presents context as “the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs.”

To this end, the majority of professional journalistic institutions still aim to — and often do — provide context beyond the dramatic headlines, pop news, partisan rambling and other textual garbage that has entranced our society. David Brooks' past two columns noting excellent examples of long form magazine journalism are two good references. But these examples are merely drops in the bucket when it comes to what is available.

Ironically, the Web is both the curse and the cure. Opportunities to educate oneself and become informed are more prevalent than they have ever been. It’s just that the appetite for such contextualization is what has waned as infotainment becomes the norm and the spastic nature of the Web chips away at our attention spans. (See the Atlantic’s article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”)

What has become especially detrimental is that this apathy towards context and understanding is coincided by another startling movement. Also in the January issue of Esquire, Stephen Marche explores our fascination with shows such as “American Idol” and “Top Chef” and discusses the allure of passing judgment.

The fad has permeated our society so much that passing judgment feels mandatory.  Combined with the way we consume our media, this is very dangerous. We are a nation that has completely bought into the most foolish of idioms: “You’ve got to stand for something, or you’ll fall for anything.” But the impetus to stand for something and pass judgment when people don’t fully understand the issues has become a pox on America.

The mere fact that we know the name Orly Taitz is evidence enough. Or how about those death panels? These two claims were debunked time and time again, and yet, they not only persisted but also garnered fairly large followings. Why? Because informing oneself requires a little brain juice. Making cursory judgments based on bad or limited information is the new American way.

And this is why these “best of” lists and trips down memory lane are so telling. Not only do the majority of them pander to our preference for information lacking actual cognitive sustenance, but they also allow us to do what we do best: judge. Their appeal lies not in reading an authoritative list or learning anything new, but as we glance through the selections, whether we agree is all that matters. 

Andrew Del-Colle is a former Missourian reporter and a graduate student at the Missouri School of Journalism.


Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


tina fey December 30, 2009 | 6:20 a.m.

Andrew has failed to outline the sell-out of mainstream media to liberal interests and it's failure to report on critical issues in American life. Driven by insecure and anxiety stricken editors, publications like the Missourian (although not a newspaper but a student journal instead) spew liberal propaganda and fail to report objectively. Instead of penetrating stories - Why did the scientific world promote bogus global warming data without peer review? Why did the Obama administration promote the racist agenda of Anthony Van Jones? Why did the Democrat party support the corrupt ACORN organization? Why is the NEA lobby still supporting a failed federal agency? - and the sold-out mainstream media missed all of these stories, they instead print front page bullets that soothe their liberal leanings. I suppose it is fair to say that most writers in the media are not qualified to report on most subjects that they cover. After all, they are simple graduates of a journalism school and not content experts. Perhaps this is why media formats as we know them will disappear. The control of ideology will be removed from ill-informed journalist and instead the spin will come from content experts via the Internet. In the future, the 'news' will be delivered by those in the know rather than those who want to tell you what they know. We should be thankful that as the quality of journalism fades, the quantity of truth will increase as each individual reader retrieves her own nuggets rather than being hand fed what an editor or a journalism student wants you to think. What a wonderful world it will be.

(Report Comment)
LN Mazuch December 30, 2009 | 4:13 p.m.

Raw truth without interpretation is useless to the masses. That's the purpose of journalism as a profession: find the truth and then tell an understandable story with it to inform and educate the public. If a "content expert" tells you that a person has cracked the algorithm for cell phone encryption, what does that mean to you? You need someone who will take that truth and interpret the consequenses (such as your phone is now the equivalent of a radio - anyone can tune in and listen to your private conversations).

I do agree that there are major journalism outlets that regularly fail to report necessary and penetrating news, but if everyone just goes to the internet to find their own nuggets of truth, then Andrew's point will be even more valid. Editors are human, but I do believe that most of them are doing their best to get a wide range of context-heavy information out to the public. People aren't always interested in the news, but it doesn't mean they don't need to know it. The internet allows people to avoid the news they don't want to read about. And though you and I might be the type of people who will seek-out information on a wide variety of topics, I know plenty of people (and so do we all) who would only read what they want to read.

In other words, I might not have liked taking math in school, but it's part of the curriculum for a reason. It's something I need to know. Same goes for the news I wouldn't seek out on my own. That doesn't mean I should believe everything I hear (or read on the internet). Information is always only as good as its sources.

PS - Did you look up the cell phone thing, yet??

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.