The Digital Food Chain

In the discussion of digital versus analog media, I believe that there are large differences.

Digital media is centered on ease and aesthetics. Accessing it is as simple as opening a computer. But moving on is also as easy as clicking the mouse, so digital media, and particularly websites, rely on catching the eye of the viewer. I definitely agree with the “3 second rule.” Viewers have become so accustomed to scanning through the internet that they do not give the sites much of a chance to fully grasp their attention. The best sites have some appealing quality. Whether its certain color schemes that catch our eye, or clean simplicity that makes navigation easy and fun, the most viewed sites have to do something correctly with their design.

Another big difference is in the access to information. Digital media allows information to be released immediately, regardless of accuracy. With analog media, information is released on a schedule. I think that the access to information that digital media provides is a double-edged sword. While I love being able to access information quickly, sometimes before the media, I hate that the information that is accessible is also often wrong. Digital media is constantly being updated.

Analog media relies on the concept of structured stories that people seek to read. Fans of analog media are generally purists. They have built up a love for receiving their media on a scheduled basis and are not looking for something that will catch their eye. Strong word choice-not font-is what catches the eye of the reader.

DQ: Can analog and digital media coincide?

How can digital media further advance?

Is it too easy?

Carr’s article on whether Google is making us stupid is a question that I have been wondering a lot about since I interned in Washington. Based on my experiences, I tend to agree with most of what Carr is saying. I believe that digital media and technology may not be making us less intelligent, but seems to be making us more narrow minded and less informed. To me, this is just as alarming.

What is concerning is that, because of technology, information is now as easy to attain as clicking a button. What pops up may not be completely factual, but who would not want to find an answer that they are satisfied with so quickly and effortlessly?

Another concern is the prevalence of biased information. People now have easy access to television stations, blogs and new outlets that share their beliefs, and because of this people have stopped looking anywhere else for their information. This phenomenon, in my opinion, is causing people to become more narrow minded than ever. Sites such as Wikipedia tie all of this together. On Wikipedia, I could have my PhD and be the smartest man on any given subject. Which raises the question of why I am able to have such power. Sadly, however, this is the case.

Access to information is a blessing and a curse. It allows us to have access to more information than ever, while also giving us access to more misinformation than ever. So while Carr claims that Google is making us more stupid, I would rephrase that statement slightly. I believe that Google is making us more narrow minded, while also making us more informed. In a way, Google is like the drug dealer and we are the buyers. It enables us and tells us what we want to hear.

DQs: Is Google “an enabler”?

Are people too lazy to look beyond the first page?