Information of the right kind is brain candy. Most of my columns focus on the web, because it's a new source of information, with a somewhat different set of strengths and weaknesses compared to the longer-running, more established sources of information. But when we look to satisfy our craving for information, it is good to remember these other sources.
Most readers of this column are fond of books. Books have been the staple of those questing for knowledge for millennia. The strength of books includes their depth, variety, veracity and permanence. A well-crafted book is an unsurpassed resource on its subject. Books are our most ancient source of information beyond word of mouth and given the time they have been with us, they have addressed everything mankind has experienced from a vast number of perspectives. Books which stand the test of time establish veracity. Poor books abound - they have for centuries - but they will disappear with time. Those that speak truly, on subjects of value, clearly and concisely - in other words, quality books - tend to survive.
You may or may not regularly read the newspaper. Newspapers have been a very useful information source, supplying breadth, depth, and most important, topicality. There aren't too many subjects that aren't covered occasionally in the newspaper. The depth with which a topic is covered is highly variable; depth is limited more by editorial choice than by the limitations of the medium. Until this century, they were the fastest way for the average person to get the news, making them a historical source of information of tremendous value. The future of newspaper as a major media source is not clear, although at this point, it is hard to conceive of it disappearing soon.
As far as television and radio, you probably watch and listen to less than most people. The broadcast media have breadth, speed, and simplicity as their primary advantages. Radio, especially commercial radio, has little value as a non-entertainment information source in the United States today. Television has not atrophied as severely as radio has. The rise of specialized cable television networks and the continued strength of public broadcasting have much to do with this. As cable channels continue to develop, more diversity of programming occurs. People with specialized interests also want depth in the programming they consume, so cable channels tends to promote depth. This is fortunate, because recent trends in network programming have been to avoid depth in programming in favor of one other "advantage" that television has: television is a very passive medium. All you have to do is watch - simple enough for virtually anyone in our society.
All of the media I've discussed have one common disadvantage. You have to take what is available from each medium when and where it is found. At home, you have your personal library accessible, along with whatever newspapers and magazines you have at hand. You can turn on the radio or the television, but you can't watch a program that isn't on right now. Your choices improve if you can go to a library, a newsstand, a video or a music store, albeit at some cost to yourself in the latter examples. Television and perhaps radio promises us the choice of "any program ever made, anytime, anywhere," but this is a rather long-standing promise that still looks to be some time in coming. I expect it will be expensive, too.
The web doesn't share this disadvantage and perhaps this is its biggest advantage. As long as you have a connection to the web, you have access to everything currently there, anytime, anywhere, right now, usually for free. It is broad, it can be deep and it can be as topical as television or radio.
It does have some unique flaws, however. There is no guarantee of veracity in anything you might find on the web. Sources range from unimpeachable to completely unreliable. For instance, I follow message threads on a financial page for a few commonly-held US stocks. There are often revelations posted there that are earthshaking ... which prove to be completely untrue. People lie, and it is easy to be taken in by this kind of lying, especially if it reinforces your world-view. Defend yourself with critical evaluation, confirmation of questionable data and perhaps most importantly, by cultivating trusted sources. Some sites have established credibility that they aggressively protect. I find that it is generally safe to trust who they trust.
We've established what we want, and that is information. In looking at various media, we've identified strengths in each. To be most effective in finding what we're looking for, we need to use what the military calls a combined-arms approach. As an example, a few months ago, I reviewed a web site by Marylaine Block. She had a section in which she explored "Books Too Good to Put Down." I picked one from the science fiction list, a book called "When Harley Was One," by David Gerrold. It was written in 1970, and turned out to make some very interesting observations on how a future society might evolve. Many were way off the mark, like casual drug use becoming ubiquitous, but others, such as the development of a corporate uberculture, seem to be right on the mark. I got interested in the author - what else he had written and where he was now - and hit the web. Amazon.com showed me some of what he had written, and Google identified that he had a web site. There I found to my surprise that he was the author of the most famous of all Star Trek episodes: "The Trouble with Tribbles." I also found that he has just released a new book called "Worlds of Wonder: How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy." I've read it now - it is full of all sorts of good stuff - and have more leads to pursue. As I bounce from book to web to book to web, I gain more information and more importantly, more leads to information. For those who like the cutting edge, don't ignore the power of "old" media. For those who are very traditional, don't ignore the power of the "new" media. Use them together to get the best each has to offer.
CATBAR - Brain Candy #53 - "We want ... information" / Brian Rock / Dec 18 2001