The increased access to news has presented itself as a gift and a curse. On the one hand, we have unlimited access to information that we can obtain from the phones in our pockets in a manner of seconds. But, it’s also fair to say that the amount of information we receive is overwhelming and is often discarded as quickly as it was received.
According to a 2011 article published by The Telegraph, “[researchers] found that in 1986 we received around 40 newspapers full of information every day but this had rocketed to 174 in 2007.” In the seven years since the study, this number has likely only increased.
Having access to this information allows readers to maintain an awareness locally and nationally and for many news organizations, digital delivery has helped them to expand their brand.
Unfortunately, because there is so much information to disseminate, stories often have “flashy” headlines to grab the reader’s attention and are quickly forgotten—The New York Times’ Brian Stelter uses the example of “KONY 2012” and several other events to illustrate this point.
“Fireworks like “KONY 2012” burn more brightly than they would have in the past, but for better or worse, they tend to be extinguished faster than ever, too. Just ask Jeremy Lin, who’s no longer a source of “Linsanity,” or Karen Handel, who’s no longer a top official at the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation, or Michele Bachmann, no longer a presidential candidate. Or Rick Perry. Or Herman Cain. (If you can remember why they were newsworthy at all.)”
With more information comes more responsibility particularly for journalists. While social media sites have allowed for meaningful discussion between journalists and readers and have helped them to gain more exposure, verification of information continues to be pose a serious threat to journalists.
There are many accounts and websites that have fooled reporters in the past which is why it’s more important now than ever before for journalists to verify their information through multiple reputable channels. What makes this difficult, of course, is the desire by organizations to be first rather than emphasizing what’s truly important which is that they get their information right in the first place.
While the inflow of information can indeed be overwhelming at times, I personally believe we have not reached the point of over-saturation and we may never reach that point at all. The new technologies that have evolved with our information gathering process have allowed it so we can personalize what content we do and do not receive. Twitter is a prime example of this, allowing users to customize their feeds to their own tastes and Facebook similarly has been using their algorithms to personally tailor content to its users based on their likes and other activity.
While one could make the argument that customization may leave you unaware of some important stories, we still run into the same problem of sifting through the 174 newspaper stacks worth of information without customization where you could just as easily miss the same story due to the sheer amount of incoming content.
In an interview with The Telegraph, Dr. Martin Hilbet said, “Compared to nature, we are but humble apprentices. If we tried to store the name of every star in the Universe we could only file one per cent.”