Where Did California Go?

For this week's MOOC Talk, we were asked to provide our speaker with questions about his material. I was beyond ecstatic that my question was chosen! I feel like an extremely small celebrity. I am also impressed that Mr. Delano would take the time out to give me such a thoughtful response.

Here is my question: 

It seems as if this week will be a discussion of the synthesis between news literacy and social media literacy. With social media outlets (i.e. Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr) becoming the forefront for access to breaking news and information, is there a fear that these social networks will eclipse traditional news media? If this were to happen, what new purpose would these news media outlets begin to serve? 

And here is Mr. Delano's answer: 

It seems to me that the major current weakness with the social media outlets is the need for being an informed consumer of news and information.  Since anyone can post their views, there is a virtual avalanche of personal opinions and interpretations.  Professional journals have minimized this by having a rigorous system of peer review that minimizes unsubstantiated arguments prior to publication.  In the absence of peer review, consumers of news need to be knowledgeable enough to be able to critically evaluate information in the social media.  This is a large responsibility that the traditional news media has taken seriously, but are now being challenged to short-cut in order to be ‘first’ with a report.  In my view, it is far better to be ‘late but accurate’, than to be ‘first and inaccurate’.  Therefore, I have an implicit faith that ‘quality sells’, and that junk (albeit fast) will ultimately fail among discriminating readers.  Those readers who are not discriminating (i.e., uninformed; uncritical; seekers of entertainment, rather than knowledge) will contribute to the rising level of ‘noise’.  In summary, with so much ‘noise’ being created by social media, the burden of thinking critically is growing on the audience.  In the absence of a well-educated, thoughtful audience, the ‘noise’ will create confusion and chaos.  When that ultimately occurs, I predict that the value of high-quality journalism (in whatever form) will again be appreciated due to its rigor for ‘getting things right, rather than just being first’.

What struck me most about his answer, was his idea about "noise." From first hand experience, I have come across many creators of "noise." These are the people who believe every single thing that they see or hear, and throw any sort of caution to the wind. They have no concept of the idiomatic grain of salt. Even amongst the people in my college community, I see no inquisitive desire in them and sometimes marvel at their ignorance. 

What do we do with these people? How do we get them to be interested and informed in the "news"? For these questions, the answer may lie in the problem that I addressed in my post. I think that the lack of critical thinkers comes from the fact that the "news" does not challenge us. It provides us with information that is so transient that we as viewers could really care less if the information is true or not. 

Therefore, to combat the "noise", perhaps news outlets need to work harder to give us information that we will care enough about to either believe in or disprove. If I turned on my TV right now, and the breaking news was that California finally broke off from the U.S., I would be more interested in that than in the 10 ways that I could wear a scarf for the fall. 

I would want to know more about the new island of California, how it will affect the economy, where it will float to, if it would eventually sink, if Californians would still want to call themselves Americans or declare themselves an independent country, but this raises yet another issue. HOW do we figure out if something is true? How do I know if something across the country or across the world actually happened? 

I think that this comes back to Mr. Delano's talk about the importance of social media to journalism and broadcasting. Social media provides us with the ability to experience things that are happening, even if we are halfway around the globe. Perhaps if I see a person's footage on Vine of Californian soil breaking, or 20 Instagram pictures of the fault lines breaking with mass hysteria, I will be inclined to believe that it is true. I cannot even think of how many times someone (or myself even) has said "Yeah it's true! Everyone's posting about it on *insert social media outlet here*" Social media does indeed provide us with another layer to the news and other information, and has now become an integral part to how we discern what is true or not. So maybe a synthesis of social media and journalism will provide the kick start that "noisemakers" need to become more questioning.