What has been repeatedly driven home to me from our series to readings is that the age of static facts is over. The Internet allows, nay, requires that all stories exist in a constant state of evolution.
A story is filed on the Internet. Tens, hundreds, thousands of readers pounce on the story pointing out flaws, adding more information or criticizing. The next post is filed. The story has changed. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
This is a side of the “publish then select” reality in which we now live. There’s no shame or blame in letting a story out before all of the facts are in. The story just isn’t finished yet.
But with a beginning, middle and no end in sight, can we even still call them news ‘stories?’ What we have now are endless, fluctuating narratives that require constant attention – attention that some believe is eroding as I type.
The facts are always changing. The amount of new information for any ongoing situation is infinite. But human attention is a limited resource. That being said, it’s practically impossible to follow every story we pick up.
Don’t get me wrong. I am thrilled to never again feel the stab of disappointment that comes when you’ve finally bought the last volume of your Encyclopedia Britannica set only to realize that the entire thing is now out of date.
My fear is that in an environment where half-facts and a first stab is what draws readers in that many may not stick around to watch the story grow - a world where people have only read the first chapter of every book.
‘Solid information’ is done (if it ever existed in the first place). I can appreciate why that’s happened. But we need to be careful and thoughtful about what takes its place.
I come to mourn the death of hard facts, not to praise them
No comments:
Post a Comment