“The most successful people of the 21st century will be those who can take the proliferation of information and make sense of it for other people.” – John Naisbitt, Megatrends 2000
I don’t remember where I first saw that quote, and I have never read Megatrends 2000. I will probably never read it because Amazon.com reviewers only assigned it 3 stars; it’s probably not even relevant anymore, considering that it was published in 1991.
However, someone pulled that quote from Naisbitt’s book and designated it as an important bit of information. I, too, copied the quote and wrote it in my notebook. Here are my questions: does making sense of information mean gathering it (i.e. news digest) or interpreting it (i.e. newspaper with staff writers)? And, does making sense of information mean trying to find ways to decrease the “fluff”?
If information were money, we’d all be filthy rich. I can’t read newspapers anymore because I am so overwhelmed by all the information, and I think online editions of newspapers are worse because more articles can be archived. At least with a paper edition, I can recycle it and remember only what was interesting.
(Pictured at left: A man providing too much information, by caspermoller)
How does this man make you feel? I am not going to interpret your reaction to this photograph or try to guide your response, but I am nervous about his willingness to reveal so much. All joking aside, too much information, or T.M.I., overwhelms me; it makes me anxious and nervous, and I’d rather not bother with it.
I grew up in a house that was constantly flooded with books, magazines, and many other types of media. My parents must be subscribed to every magazine and mailing list ever created. This environment definitely made me the person I am today, but it was also very anxiety-inducing. When The New Yorker arrives in the mail every week, I place it on a stack of things that I need to read. The stack grows taller, and I never have extra time to catch up.
Does Too Shy to Stop only add to this mess of information? Do I really want to contribute to the very monster that inspires my own obsessive neuroses? Must I really add one more rag to the pile? I actually do ask myself these questions, and I think about other publications and the roles that they serve.
Let’s consider the New York Times, which publishes “All the news that’s fit to print.” Perhaps Americans no longer need “all” the news, and maybe (I hate to say it) we have moved away from “print.” According to an article in The Observer on Sunday, America’s “most revered newspaper” is feeling the economic downturn. This revelation is supposed to be shocking.
(Pictured at right: the New York Times building, by alextorrenegra)
Writes Paul Harris, “Publisher Arthur Sulzberger may have to sell some of the NYT’s office space…The New York Times building, soaring 57 storeys above Manhattan’s 42nd Street, was heralded as the most significant addition to the city’s skyline for a decade. When it opened in 2007, it was an ambitious statement of intent for the most famous journalistic brand in America. It would be a sleek and stylish home for the best journalism in the world. That was then.”
Is this the end of journalism? Listen, the New York Times is a package, a glossy coat over talent that’s not going to disappear. Why is everyone so shocked? Am I the only one who visits the NYT’s website and feels the beginning stages of a panic attack? The looming end of the NYT is neither the end of democracy nor the end of journalism; rather, it is a call for us to examine how Americans want their overabundance of information packaged.
Enter stage left: The Daily Beast, “a speedy, smart edit of the web from the merciless point of view of what interests the editors…the omnivorous friend who hears about the best stuff and forwards it to you with a twist.” I’m still trying to gain a decent understanding of this website, but, again, I’m overwhelmed by all the content.
From what I gather, they republish their favorite articles from other publications and contribute some original content too. The editors say that The Daily Beast is not a news aggregator because they interpret the news and make it fresh. Honestly, I don’t think I have time for a new spin unless I am completely on board with the editors’ vision and mission.
In the age of information overload, people are going to seek (not absorb) information that is the most relevant and interesting to them. I think the age of big publications like the New York Times is over because these publications publish “all the news”; no one wants all the news anymore.
(Pictured at left: newsprint, by Steve Punter)
Niche media outlets are definitely the way of the future, and the challenge for someone like me, who runs a very specialized online magazine, is to package the information in such a way that attracts the people who would most enjoy and benefit from the information that we provide.
Everyone else can ignore Too Shy to Stop, and I am okay with that. The luxury of the Internet is that we are available in a central, paper-less place, and the discarded, ignored copies won’t be stuffed in a trash can. If you don’t like us, just close your browser window.
