Get it Right: Too Much Information?

By Erica Morgan

President Obama delivered an empowering commencement speech to graduating Hampton University students on May 1. With the sagacity of Spiderman’s Uncle Ben, he administered the cliche “with great power comes great responsibility” pump-up prose and paid some lip service to America’s preeminence, the American “insistence on pursuing a dream” and the glory of democracy. The irony of Obama delivering a speech touting the glory of a free society becomes clear when one examines his words a little more carefully. The president managed to weave the following into his commencement address:

Meanwhile, you’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t rank all that high on the truth meter. With iPods and iPads, Xboxes and PlayStations, information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment. All of this is not only putting new pressures on you; it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy.

I wonder if Stanford students feel unduly pressured by the deluge of media information. Are we, as the president implies, diverted and distracted by the onslaught of news sources? Are we incapable of isolating crucial arguments when bombarded by 24/7 media? Obama continued his claim:

With so many voices clamoring for attention on blogs, on cable, on talk radio, it can be difficult, at times, to sift through it all; to know what to believe; to figure out who’s telling the truth and who’s not. Let’s face it, even some of the craziest claims can quickly gain traction. I’ve had some experience with that myself.

Statements like these bring to mind a White House blog (more irony?) post in August of 2009, which requested that the public report “disinformation” about health insurance reform to the government. The blog post reads, “These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of [the disinformation] here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”

The message is clear: information presented on blogs, cable and talk radio is problematic and “diverting,” unless of course it is analyzed by the Obama administration, stripped of critical content and stamped with presidential approval. It has been decreed that we ought not question the ineffable wisdom of the White House. In fact, we must report our fellow citizens when they dare to contradict “the truth” disseminated by the president. Remember, students, challenging authority is only permitted during Republican presidencies.

I argue that there are few things more central to democracy than different voices clamoring for our attention. The forums may be blogs, cable and talk radio, but doesn’t this allow for a greater number of viewpoints to be heard? The freedom of the press and the availability of varied and conflicting perspectives is crucial to keeping debate alive and providing some kind of balance to political discourse. Certainly false information surfaces from time to time, but the perils of an occasional inaccuracy pale in comparison to the prospect of a state-controlled media.

Obama’s comments seem out of place in a nation that condemns China and Iran for censoring free information transfer. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested earlier this year that China must answer for its behavior with Google: “We look to the Chinese government for an explanation.”

During the summer of 2009, the U.S. State Department asked Twitter to delay a network upgrade to allow Iranian protesters to continue using the service to communicate freely.

And yet our president claims that these resources are not tools of empowerment, but forms of entertainment. Which is why I am skeptical of his closing remarks to the graduates of Hampton: “And it now falls to you, the Class of 2010, to write the next chapter in America’s story…”

The Class of 2010 may write the story, but surely Obama will not approve unless it is first fact-checked by the administration and published on a government approved website.

Too many voices clamoring for your attention? Just pay attention to this one: emorgan1@stanford.edu.

Joe

“I wonder if Stanford students feel unduly pressured by the deluge of media information.”

Yes, I absolutely do. Remember Balloon Boy?

“Are we incapable of isolating crucial arguments when bombarded by 24/7 media?”

Yes, you apparently are. Seriously, just because the White House offers fact-checks that you can believe or disregard at your leisure, Obama wants the state to control the media? There are plenty of true issues to criticize about this administration; you don’t need to make shit up. Or did you get this talking point from a blog, cable TV, or talk radio? Then you’re just proving his point.

“
reader

While I think Erica displays a healthy skepticism about what sounds like a very big-brother-esque approach to the media landscape on the part of the administration, she doesn’t address the very real problem that something in that landscape is broken. When a large proportion of the population believes things that simply aren’t true – such as that Mr. Obama was not born in the United States, or that Health Care Reform authorizes ‘death panels,’ or that financial reform is a handout to banks – there is a problem. Fact-checking should come from independent sources, not from the administration, but some kind of tool needs to be developed that can separate real news from the falsehoods that fly constantly not only on the internet, but also on radio and television.
Danny

This is an ironic story, as this itself is full of mistruths and yet, low and behold it was not censored!

Erica, you are comparing the request to pass along misinformation for awareness’ sake to state censorship? Really? Honestly, I think the lack of a diversity of political opinions on campus is a shame. But it’s no surprise when the conservative take is as incoherent as this.
BigFatMedia

and to think, i thought you might be covering the fcc workshop on media consolidation tomorrow at stanford. silly me!

you might have had a point about obama being big brotheresque if there had been any sort of crackdown on entities that spread half-truths and rumors about health care reform. but was there? of course not. no jackboots came to kick in glenn beck’s door or haul away rush limbaugh. instead, the entities that employ the becks and limbaughs of the world made millions freaking out people like my grandfather. why? because they were free to lie as much as they wanted, and those lies are still on the internet for anyone to read and the obama administration didn’t actually do anything about it. that’s the real version of events, rather than your paranoid take.

it’s nice to see healthy skepticism on campus, but this is not it. please, question what the president does, but also be willing to look at facts objectively and react to reality, instead of paranoid fantasies.
lol

you’re way too biased for anyone with half a brain to take you seriously. FoxNews would love you.
Good job

Good article, Erica!
Democrats often seem to approve of the freedom when it’s their opportunity to criticize. They vehemently oppose those same freedoms when they are on the receiving end. So, “lol” – you are apparently one of those who can’t handle criticism of your favorite president (and Erica actually kept it pretty civil).
comment

There’s a vast difference between questioning authority (“Maybe a public option isn’t a good idea.”) and spreading absurd falsehoods (“Healthcare reform includes death panels!”)

You make it sound like when people report claims that sound suspicious (like about death panels or coverage for pets or God knows what else), the Obama administration jumps in to abduct the person making the claims or censor them. Speech is free, but some of the claims that people are making are (and believing!) are so absurd that the government wants to know what rumors are spreading so it can try to address them. This does not mean that people are not free to think for themselves or speak freely.