As I was reading the other day, an interesting thought occurred to me. What if your favorite magazine printed every single article that was submitted to them? What if your favorite TV channel produced and aired every single show that was pitched to them? What would TV, magazines, etc. look like? Here’s the answer: the Internet. I don’t know about you but I don’t want to read every article that was sent into Time Magazine or National Geographic. I don’t want to watch everything that was sent in to channel 9. I want someone to filter out the junk and provide me with something of quality.
But that doesn’t happen on much of the Internet. You get the good and the bad. When you type a Google search for something, you get lots of junk. Go to YouTube.com and you’ll find every ridiculous video that someone with some time and a video camera uploaded. I’m not innocent either, I’ve uploaded some pretty useless stuff (seriously, don’t bother looking at this: homemade “music”. It’s not worth your time). This is one of the simultaneous strengths and weaknesses of the Internet. You get access to loads of stuff you didn’t have before but the price is gobs of stuff you never wanted to see.
Back in 1988 the dad of a good friend of mine stated something about the Internet that shocked me. He said that the Internet was going to reduce the overall quality of information in the world. What? Could this be true? I was young and so was the Internet–what this man said surely couldn’t possibly come true. The comment stuck in my mind because he was a very sharp man and understood technology better than most back then. The sad truth is that he was right. The Internet has diluted the quality of information world-wide. Sure, there are some amazing things available on the Internet–but for every one piece of quality, there are 100 or 1,000 times as many pieces of absolute garbage. Email communication is great but spam is 90.4% of all email. Terrific!
A recent “Did You Know 4.0” video states that “More video was uploaded to YouTube.com in the last two months than if ABC, NBC, CBS had been airing new content 24/7/365 since 1948.” Pretty amazing. Two points to consider however. Is this statistic even accurate? There is no reference to check their math. Apparently the attention-span of the “new media” consumer is so short that the accuracy of facts doesn’t matter. The second point to consider is the quality of that video. YouTube hasn’t ever produced something like Lost, Friends or Seinfeld. If you want more, the Internet is there for you. But I also want quality.
So please don’t see the Internet as if it were something it’s clearly not. No one is filtering the Internet. This is a good and but also bad thing. As good educators, parents, and consumers, we need to keep this in mind.