Context in the Information Age (The first Internet president?)

I read an interview recently where Ray Bradbury said Fahrenheit 451 was never a story about censorship or McCarthyism. It was about television not being a substitute for literature. It fills us with useless information and could be used as channel for state sponsored indoctrination. Come to think of it, I think he also talked about it creating a society where everyone is a minority and political correctness reaches the point of absurdity. Books must be burned because they will always offend someone. Replace “television” with “Internet” and it becomes frighteningly prophetic.

While you were describing how the Internet effects context, I couldn’t help but keep wondering how this is any different than anything ever written down throughout history. Anytime someone puts pen to paper, or now types a key, are they not giving up a bit of that ability to control context? That has weighed heavily in my mind and kept me from clicking enter on at least half of the posts or comments I have begun to write online.

Whose job is it to convey context? I wish we could rely on the media or journalists to inject that proper context you speak of. I find myself dwelling far too often on whether or not there should be some kind of journalistic standards or oversight for the news. We have it for medicine and other public services or things that could harm our well-being. Should people be held accountable for the information they put out in the world, especially if they are claiming to be delivering news? But that borders far to closely to censorship for my taste, and I back away from the thought.

I think the only way to maintain proper context is for people to develop stronger critical thinking skills. People must have a properly maintained sense of skepticism. We need to be able to read something and understand that there is history, context and complexities to it. I’m honestly not sure most people even understand the concept of context. The answer laid in front of us, whatever is the easiest explanation, usually seems to win. It’s easier to assume Edward Snowden is a traitor who took refuge in Russia because, of course. Who cares why he actually ended up in Russia, he is there now so that’s the story.

I put it with what you said about wisdom, it’s important to be able to understand and accept that there are countless points of view. Ultimately, I think the responsibility falls on the recipient, because you should never assume someone is setting the context properly for you. Far too often the media seems to not want to deliver any proper context, and they actively work to misrepresent the author. And I couldn’t agree more that this is likely a predictable consequence of capitalism.