Contrasting Journalism

In Evgeny Morozov’s To Save Everything, Click Here, he takes on a critical view of Internet theory and the way we as a society discuss “the Internet.” It’s not that Morozov denies the influence of the Internet on modern society, but rather, he criticizes the way in which many approach it. Among many of his criticisms are the tendencies of what he calls “solutionism” and “Internet-centrism.” Solutionism, as Morozov describes it, attempts to solve problems before the problems have been fully examined, thus the “solutions” to these problems create unknown consequences. Internet-centrism addresses the ideology that we are in the midst of a unique revolution because of the Internet, and that because we have adopted this perspective, the Internet has become our central point of view for addressing societal problems. It is Morozov’s assertion that these tendencies are inhibiting our ability to progress, and even our understanding of history of other media. Morozov’s view is much more critical than many of the opinions found in both online and offline journalism.

Some news organizations, such as the New York Times, take on the role of informing consumers about technologic happenings and events. They provide facts about particular instances, often current events, so that readers can draw their own opinions about whether what is happening is “good” or “bad.” These types of outlets, ones that report the news, can help readers contextualize broader issues, however, many neglect to ask the heavier questions that Morozov insists are necessary for a complete understanding.

At least online, it seems that journalistic attempts to discuss aspects of the Internet are quite ephemeral – what’s hot news one day is old news the next. For example, the release of Apple’s iPhone 5s dominated the headlines of many media outlets (both niche technology publications as well as general news publications) around the time of its release, but seemed to fade into the background within a week or so after the release, leaving room for the next new trend to dominate the headlines for a few days instead. In other words, the “news” ideas presented by many media outlets aren’t necessarily all that sticky.

It is interesting to note that commentary provided by niche “journalists” or tech enthusiasts is vastly different than the commentary provided by academics  who have some sort of formalized background knowledge of the subject material. An enthusiast can tell a reader what the features of a new technology are, how it works, and perhaps, if they’re a good reporter, even how a piece of technology has evolved. However, I’ve found that when reading articles written by enthusiasts, many tend to draw cultural assumptions without providing substantial concrete evidence. While academics seem to have a bit more mastery over supporting their claims with evidence, articles by academics are often much more difficult to digest for the average reader.

Previously Unconsidered Ideas

While it seems quite obvious that the Internet didn’t exist 50 years ago (and didn’t exist as we know it today until 15-20 years ago), I found myself in many ways a participant of what Morozov refers to as “Internet-centrism” — the idea that the Internet has led some to believe that,  “we are living through unique, revolutionary time, in which the previous truths no longer hold, everything is undergoing profound change, and the need to ‘fix things’ runs as high as ever” (16). I am what Morozov and many others refer to as a “digital native” — I have had at least one computer in my household since the time I was born, and I’ve had access to the internet from the time I was old enough to use a computer unsupervised. I don’t know life without the internet, and thus it’s hard for me to imagine what life was like before we all had the option to be constantly connected. It’s a limiting, and as Morozov points out, dangerous, perspective to have. Rather than subscribing to this exceptionalism, it would be prudent to understand more about the history of the evolution of all technologies, and the revolutions that proceeded each new invention. In order to understand where we are and where we are going, we must also understand where we’ve come from.

I’ve recently been grappling with what digital technologies mean for education — both in my own realm of higher education, but also for the future of our educational system. Morozov was able to articulate some of the ideas I’ve been working through in my own mind when he asserts that while digital technologies might enable us to “know” more, they don’t necessarily help us develop the skills we need to think critically – skills that are undoubtedly necessary in overcoming “solutionism” and “Internet-centrism.” I’ve tended to view digital technologies as tools that allow me to have access to a greater wealth of information, thus contributing to my “education”, but Morozov’s point of contention resonates with me. Are  digital technologies hindering us from becoming critical thinkers? Morozov seems to think so, and it’s certainly an idea I’ll continue to keep in mind.

Problematic Ideas

Morozov makes several (rather disdainful) references to McLuhanism and the use of previous media studies to help more modern media theorists — specifically those studying and writing about the Internet — interpret what’s happening today. While I agree that using Marshall McLuhan’s pre-Internet theories should not be the end-all be-all of today’s Internet research, it seems foolish to discount his work entirely. Certainly McLuhan’s media theories have some value in the discussion of Internet. However, instead of attempting to use McLuhan’s ideas  as simple explanation — as Morozov seems to assert many do — today’s media theorists should build upon, expand, and even question McLuhan’s theories. Morozov seems to imply that any modern day media theorist who references McLuhan is drastically mistaken in his or her research. But, in nearly the same breath, Morozov is quick to criticize media theorists for misrepresenting or misunderstanding the history of previous technologies. Would it not be even more naive to completely discount all media theory that came before the age of the Internet?

While Morozov makes an effort to separate himself from conservative curmudgeons, his tone is rather reminiscent of one. He is quick to criticize the lack of critical discourse on the Internet, and points to numerous examples in which authors leave out what he considers to be the critical questions we should be asking. I find Morozov’s approach here slightly irritating. I agree that we, especially as educated  individuals in academia, should be asking critical questions instead of taking the Internet at face value. However, instead of proposing a framework for how to accomplish this kind of critical discourse, Morozov spends an extensive amount of time ripping apart  others’ research without acknowledging what  his idea of “good” research looks like (at least in the first two chapters of the book).