Graham Ring
In the age of the internet we are deluged by huge volumes of information delivered at hitherto undreamt-of speeds. Media outlets are driven by an imperative to report on events literally as they are occurring. The speed at which everything must happen to make good the promise to be “first at five” makes mistakes inevitable. Little heed is given to context – an explanation of the circumstances surrounding an event – in a world where immediacy is king. There just isn’t time.
How then are we to triage, analyse, and assess the information flooding over us? One ugly answer is that information has become so transitory and disposable that there is no need to bother. If you don’t like the piece you’re reading don’t worry - another one will be along in a minute. Mr Zuckerberg is refining his algorithms so skilfully you can be certain that opinions reinforcing your existing views are already speeding towards your computer.
Life is busy, and this is a convenient way for us to receive the kind of news and opinions we want. But do we have a duty also to receive the news and opinions that we don’t want? Without doing so, how can we make a thoughtful assessment about a matter? Are we letting other people do our thinking for us?
There is a grim irony that - at a time when information is more available than ever before - the respectful contesting of ideas is in precipitous decline. Apart from an opposable thumb, a rational mind is the thing that elevates us above the beasts. If we choose not to properly inform our rational mind then the consequences are uncomfortable.
I recently attended a forum where a speaker posited that “Indigenous people were under-represented in the Northern Territory Parliament”. He presented no data to establish his contention, nor did he indicate what the appropriate level of representation should be. These convenient oversights absolved him of the need to suggest a method by which this alleged under-representation could be overcome.
Later he would excoriate the NT Government for subsidising the Red Centre Nats car show in Alice Springs, and the AFL football games in Darwin. “What role does the government have in subsidising private undertakings of this kind?” he asked rhetorically.
The cases were both very weak. But neither was contested by an audience comprised of people obviously sympathetic to the two propositions. Today a great deal of our discussion occurs in various echo-chamber environments, where speakers ‘preach to the choir’, and audiences have their views reinforced in a warmly satisfying way.
Indeed, we should be open to listening to the case for greater representation of Indigenous people in parliament - provided the proponent has established with something beyond bombast that the current level of representation is inadequate.
We should also be open to the argument that it is not effective for the government to subsidise private leisure industries – but not on the basis that this is axiomatically wrong. It’s likely that the NTG thinks that their investment in these sporting events provides a net economic return to the Northern Territory, and perhaps some social good as well. Anyone who wishes to disagree with the view ought to be welcome to present their data and substantiate their case.
But that’s not the way we do business anymore. What is missing is the respectful contesting of ideas in the public space. The cited example was from a forum traditionally inclined to the left of politics, but this myopic malaise is not confined to either side of the political spectrum.
We subscribe to the media outlets that reflect our world view. We join chat-rooms and mailing lists to that we can receive the sort of material that confirms our pre-determined positions. This is both understandable and worrying.
Our ideas are rarely questioned. There is little call for positions to be explained or justified. The skills of civility and respectful exchange are fading from atrophy. Witness the rise of internet trolls, hateful graffiti, and tweets of rant rather than reason. The technical skills of respectful discussion and debate are in dramatic decline.
We are losing the fundamental politeness of formulations like ‘In my view’ and ‘I believe that’. We frequently fail to listen carefully to someone who holds a contrary view – and to invite them to clarify and elaborate on their position. We no longer possess the wit to identify and expose verbal chicanery.
There is something admirable about individuals displaying absolute loyalty to the policies of their chosen political party. But these devotees who hold the line against any criticism of any policy, ultimately do their party - and the broader community - a dis-service.
Good public policy is generated by robust – but not rancorous – exchange of honestly-held views. We desperately need to rediscover these skills.
In the age of the internet we are deluged by huge volumes of information delivered at hitherto undreamt-of speeds. Media outlets are driven by an imperative to report on events literally as they are occurring. The speed at which everything must happen to make good the promise to be “first at five” makes mistakes inevitable. Little heed is given to context – an explanation of the circumstances surrounding an event – in a world where immediacy is king. There just isn’t time.
How then are we to triage, analyse, and assess the information flooding over us? One ugly answer is that information has become so transitory and disposable that there is no need to bother. If you don’t like the piece you’re reading don’t worry - another one will be along in a minute. Mr Zuckerberg is refining his algorithms so skilfully you can be certain that opinions reinforcing your existing views are already speeding towards your computer.
Life is busy, and this is a convenient way for us to receive the kind of news and opinions we want. But do we have a duty also to receive the news and opinions that we don’t want? Without doing so, how can we make a thoughtful assessment about a matter? Are we letting other people do our thinking for us?
There is a grim irony that - at a time when information is more available than ever before - the respectful contesting of ideas is in precipitous decline. Apart from an opposable thumb, a rational mind is the thing that elevates us above the beasts. If we choose not to properly inform our rational mind then the consequences are uncomfortable.
I recently attended a forum where a speaker posited that “Indigenous people were under-represented in the Northern Territory Parliament”. He presented no data to establish his contention, nor did he indicate what the appropriate level of representation should be. These convenient oversights absolved him of the need to suggest a method by which this alleged under-representation could be overcome.
Later he would excoriate the NT Government for subsidising the Red Centre Nats car show in Alice Springs, and the AFL football games in Darwin. “What role does the government have in subsidising private undertakings of this kind?” he asked rhetorically.
The cases were both very weak. But neither was contested by an audience comprised of people obviously sympathetic to the two propositions. Today a great deal of our discussion occurs in various echo-chamber environments, where speakers ‘preach to the choir’, and audiences have their views reinforced in a warmly satisfying way.
Indeed, we should be open to listening to the case for greater representation of Indigenous people in parliament - provided the proponent has established with something beyond bombast that the current level of representation is inadequate.
We should also be open to the argument that it is not effective for the government to subsidise private leisure industries – but not on the basis that this is axiomatically wrong. It’s likely that the NTG thinks that their investment in these sporting events provides a net economic return to the Northern Territory, and perhaps some social good as well. Anyone who wishes to disagree with the view ought to be welcome to present their data and substantiate their case.
But that’s not the way we do business anymore. What is missing is the respectful contesting of ideas in the public space. The cited example was from a forum traditionally inclined to the left of politics, but this myopic malaise is not confined to either side of the political spectrum.
We subscribe to the media outlets that reflect our world view. We join chat-rooms and mailing lists to that we can receive the sort of material that confirms our pre-determined positions. This is both understandable and worrying.
Our ideas are rarely questioned. There is little call for positions to be explained or justified. The skills of civility and respectful exchange are fading from atrophy. Witness the rise of internet trolls, hateful graffiti, and tweets of rant rather than reason. The technical skills of respectful discussion and debate are in dramatic decline.
We are losing the fundamental politeness of formulations like ‘In my view’ and ‘I believe that’. We frequently fail to listen carefully to someone who holds a contrary view – and to invite them to clarify and elaborate on their position. We no longer possess the wit to identify and expose verbal chicanery.
There is something admirable about individuals displaying absolute loyalty to the policies of their chosen political party. But these devotees who hold the line against any criticism of any policy, ultimately do their party - and the broader community - a dis-service.
Good public policy is generated by robust – but not rancorous – exchange of honestly-held views. We desperately need to rediscover these skills.
