News filters, a necessary evil. Thought shaping, not so much.

-

I was reading a Time magazine article (May 10, 2021) by Edward Felsenthal, Time's editor-in-chief. He was talking about the strategic direction of the magazine towards a more proactive approach to shape the world to be a better place. That sounds great, don't you think? How could one argue with that? 

Here's what he said at the end of the article [emphasis mine]:

"Our aspiration is tor TIME, in our company and in our coverage, to be among the ranks of businesses that drive positive action. When I started at TIME in 2013, our mission was often described as “explaining the world.” Today, we see it somewhat differently—it’s about telling stories about the people and ideas that shape the world, in hopes of doing our part to improve it."  

But look closely and you'll see two levels of news filtering. Filter #1: In 2013, Time was filtering all the hundreds of thousands or million of events happening in the world to find the few topics of most interest to their readers--major events and stories about politics, the military, health, science, and the occasional personal interest yarn. For those of a certain age, think Walter Cronkite style of informing the world. Imperfect though it was, the intent was simply to show the public some version of reality. It is what it is. 

Now, based on Mr. Felsenthal's own words, Time magazine now has a new filter to add to filter #1. Filter #2: select stories which promote a view of goodness in the world based on Time magazine's assessment. This new filter means that stories that don't meet that criteria, don't show up.  

Here's the rub. Does "promoting the good" mean pushing only one view of reality? How much "shaping" do we need? Are we children with limited judgement, unable to discern good from bad, hiding under the covers when life is not simple minded? Yes, I'm sure Time has good intentions. But no, they should not be in the shaping business. 

Here's an example: Carbon dioxide released through human activity is heating up the planet. At the same time, extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases crop yields. Mr. Felsenthal, you do not need to "shape" us by filtering out the second fact. See, we're smart enough to evaluate contravening facts. Which facts are more important? I'll decide for myself, thank you.  








Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Are We Running Out of Math?

-
Image
  Here's a question that might seem purely theoretical at first: Is mathematics discovered or invented? While it may sound like the kind of abstract puzzle that leads nowhere useful, this question has fascinating implications for our technological future. As we push the boundaries of artificial intelligence and algorithmic innovation, the nature of mathematics itself could shape what's possible.  Consider the implications of each possibility. If mathematics is discovered—if it exists independently of human minds, waiting to be uncovered like buried treasure—then there's a finite amount of it in the universe. Just as we might eventually exhaust Earth's oil reserves, we could theoretically reach a point where we've uncovered all the mathematical truths that exist. It's a sobering thought: a mathematical peak, beyond which no new foundations can be laid.  But what if mathematics is invented—a product of human creativity and intellectual exploration? This would ...
Read more

Fashion cycles forever. Repackaging opportunities

-
Image
Fashion I'm reading Foundation , by Peter Ackroyd, a book about early English history,.  He's an entertaining writer and throws off some interesting FYI-type comments.  Apparently in medieval England, the thing was to show off clothing with the brightest possible colors.  No matter that the colors clashed.  Bright, loud clothes showed your membership in the well-to-do gentry or aristocracy.  Even different colored shoes were au courant.  I started thinking about fashion in general.  There is no real standard, except that change is mandatory. Many people like quasi-random style variations--it provides an opportunity to broadcast status and success.  So how can this help business people?  Style can be embedded in anything. Customers at the grocery store may walk by the bathroom supplies section and see a toilet bowl brush.  Surely there are no style considerations there.   But yes indeed, a brush with a long, delicately curv...
Read more

On the necessity of a hyper-critical day

-
Image
  Stay positive. We hear this from teachers, friends, partners, bosses, and doctors. I’m guessing even godfather Don Corleone said it once to his lieutenants.   And there’s a reason for this hackneyed advice—99% of the time it works and works well. I hate working with a negative, irritating sour puss and I’m pretty sure you do to.   Now let’s talk about the 1%. Not the wealthy 1%. The 1% of the time you should be critical and harsh in your thinking. Once a year or maybe twice a year, clear your schedule for a hyper critical day where all the stops are pulled out and skeptical/suspicious/unkind thoughts are allowed. Why? Because most of us are basically good people and are uncomfortable with highly critical thoughts. Much of this is subconscious, which is why you need to designate a day for extremely critical, even unpleasant thinking. It takes that to root out mistakes, bad decisions, excessive trust in people, organizations, and businesses.   You have to get up an...
Read more