How do you take your News, with Cream and Sugar?

Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, humans used to get their news from one of two sources: the newspaper or word of mouth.  Next, the radio brought up to date stories and coverage into the living rooms of most American houses, followed by the TV.  Presidential fireside chats and other tactics relayed opinions as well as facts to average American families with the mass media serving as the coordinator between the politicians and the citizens.  As technology grew more robust, so did the available methods of news to be delivered and consumed.  In the mid 1990s the internet began to add a further dimension to news delivery, and in keeping with other forms of technology humans raced to adapt it to our needs; instant news delivery has become more and more prevalent as technology has increased.  Now, we have nearly unlimited options as to how we access our news, if we choose to access it at all.  With the recent addition of wi-fi, 4G LTE, and smart phones, there is no significant lag period from when a story breaks to when it is announced to the public.  Many apps even have built in text messaging services that alert users when a particular type of story breaks.  In less than a century, and for the most part in the last 20 years, the way we consume news has been dramatically altered.

At first glance, this all seems to be excellent progress, furthering our democratic notions by empowering the people with information in real time.  And for the most part, I would say that such advances have been beneficial.  Unfortunately though, like most things in life, great power comes with great responsibility.  Social media networks, blogs, and various other forms of direct person to person news sharing groups sometimes suffer from ailments of unprofessionalism or flat-out incorrect information.  The authors of many posts are regular citizens just like you and I, covering the topics they see fit in a manner they see fit, often with no first hand information about the topic.  These "reporters" are not bound by the same constraints as professional journalists working for major news networks.  Most of the time their livelihood does not depend on satisfactory performance and correct information, leaving them free to cover controversial issues in extremely partial ways.  While there are many tangible benefits inherent with the ability to truly frame issues as one sees fit, there is also an equally long list of potential pitfalls.

I mention the changes in news delivery technology and quality of sources to suggest how we elect to consume our news may have very significant impacts on the quality of information digested.  The faster news is disseminated to the people, the less time professional writers, interviewers, and editors have to check the accuracy of the story and vet its accuracy and content.  A majority of the time, major news networks have architecture in place to ensure quality content.  Blogs and social networks often times do not.  Twitter is interesting as well, combining high quality journalism with misinformed grass roots activism together under the same roof.  For those of us who do not spend hours upon hours checking what we are told via the news, complications may arise.  If people don't choose wisely how they consume their news, and through what channels they arrive at their political conclusions, they may as well be walking blind into the voting booths.  Quality news should be a positive influence in our lives, our voting habits, and our overall awareness of the world that we reside in.  For this reason, citizens should take pause to consider their consumption patterns and evaluate whether or not they are getting quality information, or information that makes them feel better by corroborating their own opinions.  While convenient, the latter of the two options does not always make for productive societies.