Journalists don’t have much to say about the unintended consequences of technology. I believe it is one of the most fascinating topics out there.
Let’s take the personal computer as an example of the technology and writing as an example of the action we want to examine. Certainly, the use of the computer — as opposed to the typewriter — to write has changed not only how we write but what we write. The ability to type 60 words per minute, to cut and paste with ease, to correct errors and forget they ever existed, to go back and change the slightest bit of punctuation — the list seems endless — has certainly brought advantages; yet, at the same time, it has created just as many unintended consequences… The process we use changes the way we think. Imagine for a moment if we’d have to go back to using a sharpened feather and ink to write. Would we write the same things? Wouldn’t the mere pace of our method affect the pace of our thought process? Thousands of questions like this can be raised… but they’re not.
Whenever new technologies come out, little thought is given to their unintended consequences. To a degree, this is justified: the consequences tend to reveal themselves slowly and — most important of all — covertly.
But isn’t it the job of journalists to look under rocks, no matter how heavy they seem?
September 9, 2006 at 7:07 am |
Are you suggesting journalists missed out on a hot scoop by not reporting the downside of the printing press, typewriters and now computers?
Would it have changed much?
I firmly believe that the best journalists act as the fly on the wall, without vested interest going on in the world around them. That prescription best allows us (journalists) to show the readers the bombast and stupidity (or genius) of their changing world.
Remember, if you approach a story with an agenda, then you peddle the agenda and fail to hit the target completely. Lifting heavy rocks for the wrong reasons can lead to a back ache.