The internet and modern
multimedia offer the gift of global communication and the capacity to share
information, knowledge and opinion with virtually everyone on the planet.
These are the most
powerful tools for the development and spread of education, culture and thought
the world has known, yet in many nations general standards of education are
slipping, general knowledge is on the wane and social skills are in decline.
How can it be that these
stupendous technological aids have produced seemingly negative effects along
with the plethora of positive aspects of their implementation?
I think the answer is
choice.
The pre-internet and
multimedia generations had few TV channels and experienced relatively rigid
programming and timing. Children’s programmes were restricted to certain times
and days, as were news, current affairs, light entertainment and religious
programmes. This meant that as a young man, I was “forced” to watch programmes
that did not necessarily appeal to me, but which (in retrospect) I realise
contributed to my general knowledge, personal development and understanding of
people, the world and its values. I watched serious current affairs programmes
such as “World in Action” or “Panorama” (focusing on political, legal and
social issues), light documentary shows such as “Whicker’s World”
(investigating many aspects of modern life across the world) and social dramas
such as “Sam”, “A Family at War” and “When The Boat Comes In” (all dealing with
the fabric of society). I would never have opted to look at such programmes,
but there were few alternatives and the thought of turning off the television
never entered my head.
A further result of the
lack of choice was that watching these programmes became a shared and social
experience. Friends, family and colleagues were in the same position and this
led to discussion and the sharing of opinion the following day, compounding
whatever informative, educational or thought-provoking effect the programme
itself might have had.
Compare this to the
situation today, where viewers have the choice of a multitude of TV channels,
internet sites, YouTube and online gaming. The young can easily opt out of
informative and potentially character-developing programming in favour of entertainment,
music on tap or endless series inviting their audiences to share personal
details of private lives and possibly encouraging admiration of a descent into
backstabbing, public bickering and humiliation – all in the name of
“entertainment” and the advancement of fame and notoriety.
Why would the young opt
in to something demanding and even difficult when something less challenging
and more accessible is more readily available and probably better publicised?
At the dawn of the
televisual age, and in its early development, opportunities in this new field
encompassing entertainment, education and information attracted the most
enterprising, talented and skilled candidates in their disciplines. In general,
these were people who didn’t just burn with a desire for fame and glory, but
who had original ideas, talent and had something to offer or say. They saw this
new medium as a means of sharing their views and vision.
It appears that many
involved in modern programming are driven less by vision and integrity and more
by ego and ambition to succeed in personality-driven television, often taking
minimal talent the maximum distance.
Of course, there are
still many high-quality programmes and contributions from individuals, but
given the exponential increase in channels, programming and the media in
general, I think it is probably fair to say standards have been diluted in
proportion with the vast increases in demand to fill schedules.
Quite apart from the
ailing quality of some programmes and the resultant lack of challenge and
thought, the sheer vastness of choice means viewing is now a greatly fragmented
experience. In choosing what suits individual mood, character and preference,
viewers may have less of a common experience to discuss with friends, family
and colleagues. There is less to unite us in one to one conversation,
discussion and debate. Indeed, discussion tends to take place online as
individuals post comments and opinion aimed at the anonymous masses. Even
sharing a reaction has become less sociable.
In terms of communication
and research (where possibilities are virtually endless), there is a tendency
to restrict oneself to a group of like-minded friends or individuals,
potentially bolstering and entrenching belief systems and avoiding challenge
and debate. It has become easy to opt out of or avoid topics and ideas that
don’t appeal, and this attitude seems to extend even to education where
students may be tempted to drop a subject if they encounter a level of
difficulty they find uncomfortable. Stamina and determination are to be
encouraged, but they are ill-served by the expectation that quick and easily
accessible solutions should be available on the internet, and if they aren’t
available it’s easier to give up than to work out your own solution.
Increased consultation of
the internet seems to have brought about a certain lack of respect for
knowledge (both on the part of students and some educators) as it is felt that
information can be accessed on the internet, used for a short time, and then
jettisoned (and sought again if required later on). This seems to be a rather
short-sighted approach, however, for if knowledge is limited or not retained,
students will fail to make connections with other facts or information (a
process which is the basis of intelligence), and this will reduce both
understanding and the capacity to understand, and will thus limit the ability
to develop and grow.
Of course, substance and
integrity still exist within all this choice, variety and diversity. We simply
need to ensure we exercise judgement and control over the choices we make in
order to make the most of the extraordinary opportunities afforded us by these
technological marvels, but in order to do that, we must first be aware of the
potential side-effects of our modern multimedia.
My thanks for taking the
time to read this article. I hope you found it of some value.
Stuart Fernie
No comments:
Post a Comment