Tag Archives: Media

Reading on the Internet – Good, Bad?

Reading on the Internet has its ups and downs. In this piece I will first go through some of my favourite aspects before I dig into the things that bother me.

Positive Qualities

Searching Power

It is easy to find information on topics that I know I am interested in. If I know what I am looking for, I can generally find it. The only problem sometimes is one of wording or word choice. For instance, in a recent example with my friends, we were looking for a specific topic using the search terms “loss of forests” rather than “deforestation”. Until we looked for the latter, we were floundering.


Internet material is often very easy to skim so that you can pick out the useful facts and ideas. Many people who write for the Internet realize that their readers are not likely to read every word.


News on the Internet is astonishingly fast and interconnected. I can learn more from the Internet in the same amount of time than I can from either Radio or Television.

Levels of Depth

You can read the Internet at many levels of depth. For instance, if you are reading the Google News headlines, they will give you a snapshot of some of the major events that are going on in the world.

Want to learn a bit more? Open up the major news items and read them. If your thirst for knowledge goes deeper yet, it is time to start following more links and searching for related terms. You can tailor your information gathering to both your level of interest and the time you have available.


On the Internet, you can end up in a direct discussion with the creator(s) of the content that you are consuming. Unlike most other mediums, on the Internet it is often possible to directly engage the author of a piece of information. No other medium has such vast powers for connection and discussion.


Confirmation Bias

You tend to find what you are looking for. This can contribute to the confirmation bias, the natural tendency of people to feel that information that agrees with their preconceptions is somehow more trustworthy than the information presenting the opposite side.

The Well-Informed Illusion

The speed of reading and the brevity of writing on the Internet can lead to an illusion of deep understanding. Many people fall prey to the often mistaken conception of themselves as well-read because they keep up-to-date with Google News or a social bookmarking site such as RedditSlashdot, or Digg.

While Google News provides an overview of some world issues, the social bookmarking sites generally highlight sensational, inflammatory, and opinionated works of note on the Internet. Neither of these approaches is necessarily well-suited for the acquisition of high-quality information about the world.

This topic is particularly close to my heart, since I am the founder of Vision of Earth, a website attempting to provide high-quality information to the general public about practical ideas for developing the unrealized potential of human societies.

You might also be interested in my broader article about the misleading nature of all media forms.

Reading Books – The Good AND The Bad

Despite the growing power and spread of the Internet, there are still some reasons that I often prefer to read books. Unfortunately, I have slowly begun to comprehend the scope of the problems with books as they are today. In this piece I will attempt to show you the good and the bad, as I see them. I hope you will stick with me to the end, because I think this topic is of prime importance to each and every one of us.

The Good

Editing and Fact-Checking

Books generally undergo more intensive editing and fact-checking than the average Internet source. Both books and websites vary in quality a lot, but in general I can expect a book to be more cohesive and clear than an average Internet source. It is also less likely to have blatant typos.

Single Voice

Authors develop a powerful voice in a book in a different way than they do on the Internet. Very few websites have changed my life after I read a lot of their content, but several books have. Sometimes a single perspective is incredibly valuable. Sometimes the finest of insights would be watered down or corrupted by bringing in multiple authors, each with their own voice.

That said, one of the finest-written books I have ever read was written by four authors. The book “Presence: An Exploration of Profound Change in People, Organizations, and Society” was written by Peter M. Senge, C. Otto Scharmer, Joseph Jaworski, Betty Sue Flowers. This book changed the way I look at both the concept of change and my own life.

The Bad

As far as fiction books go, I divide them into two distinct categories:

  1. Just for the fun of it fiction. If you enjoy it, read it. There isn’t much of an underlying motive other than the telling of a good story.
  2. Illustrative and evocative fiction, designed to make a point. These books create a set of circumstances through which the belief system of the author is articulated. For example, I recently read the libertarian industrial epic Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. In this book she creates (and destroys) a complicated world to illustrate her beliefs about the world. Despite my problems with this style of writing, I believe that the book is actually a good read. It is definitely the responsibility of the reader to realize that a contrived world is not ‘proof’ of a concept. While fiction can be educational and illustrative, it is not the real world.

Most of my problems are with non-fiction books. Here we go.

One Perspective

One author, or a set of authors, are presenting a single viewpoint on their subject. I claim that this often leads to the subject material of the book being presented through the lens of a single perspective.

This can have disastrous results for our public discourse when the topics are important and multi-faceted. To be fair, some book authors do an excellent job of presenting their considerations of multiple points of view on their topic. This is not to say that all points of view are equal; it is to say that even a single issue can be validly approached from a number of directions, each of which might lead to a different interpretation.

The best non-fiction authors will draw upon data and experience to knit together a clear picture of the way the world seems to be. These authors will consistently refer to externally verifiable data sources of the highest quality.

Publisher’s Control

High quality content might be watered down by the editing undergone in conjunction with the publishing house. The publishers are the gatekeepers of content. While the systematic effects of this may not be as evident today for the most part, it was certainly the case in the past that publishers exercised great control over what they would allow to be published in the books that they printed.

This is perhaps more important in other forms of media, such as television, where most of the market is controlled by a few major players who exercise great control over all of the content that they deliver.

Slow Spread of Knowledge

Books are now a relatively slow way to spread important knowledge. Compared to the Internet, they operate at a snails pace.

Consider the following scenario: You hear about a book you like. You acquire it either at a bookstore, or at a library, or perhaps even an ebook from either an online bookstore or library if you are tech savvy. Getting the book might take minutes to weeks depending on the situation. You then read the book, find it to be excellent, and start to recommend it to your friends. You could give your copy away to one other person, and recommend that other people also buy it or get it from libraries.

The problem is that there are definitely limited quantities of books to be ‘consumed’ and all have time limitations on how they can be acquired. Other than the case of an e-book that can be acquired instantly online, all other forms of books have delays in their spread and acquisition. On the other end of the spectrum, if you read something you like that is publicly available online, you can send the hyperlink to your friends via email and they can access the content instantly.

Out of Date

Unless revised and reprinted, books do not change with the times. While many books can be startlingly relevant for a very long time after publication, I claim that this is the exception rather than the rule.

You may also be interested in another piece of mine that looks more broadly at the misleading nature of all media forms.

The Misleading Nature Of All Media Forms

How media misleads us

I love to read and watch TV shows and movies, but I have lately come to believe that everyone should be made aware of how misleading all media forms can be. Here I will talk about some serious issues I have with content in general.

These issues apply equally well to both Internet and physical media.  These criticisms have more to do with the process of deliberate media creation and the intent of the author than with the specific medium used.

These problems apply to our public discourse in all media. Television, talk radio, news media, movies and documentaries are just as likely to employ these techniques as books, magazines, and websites.

No reader or watcher is safe from these effects. Through deliberate efforts (such as broad media consumption, study, and skeptical analysis) people can transcend these inherent flaws in all forms of media. This transcendence requires constant vigilance to guard against the corrupting influences of our increasingly opinionated and flashy media.


Finding some facts to support your argument does not make your argument correct. A collection of facts is not necessarily a sufficient analysis to show the truth of your claims. Why? Well, for example, there may be more facts that actually support a different claim, you just neglected to include them in your analysis or book.

Incorrect, or deliberately mis-represented facts are often the foundations for arguments made in media. For example, I have recently flipped through a number of books in which I spotted a large number of claims that run counter to the scientific consensus on various issues that I am very familiar with.

I don’t claim that the scientific community has a monopoly on the truth. However, if a person is making a knowledge-based claim that runs counter to the scientific consensus, the burden of proof is on them to explain why their position differs from the scientific one, and where the scientific position went wrong. Some books and TV shows are full of claims such as these.

Science is the process of systematic data acquisition and analysis. It is our best tool for establishing what is known in our world. I feel that this movement towards the cherry-picking of facts is undermining our public discourse and thus the very structure of our society.

Pushing an Agenda

Many books (and other media) are written to push an agenda, not as an attempt to communicate the truth. Many authors are not writing with the goal of informing you of the truth of a matter.

Some (perhaps most) authors write to convince you to believe what they believe. Some other authors deliberately mislead their readers in order to push a predetermined agenda. Many of these misleading authors are employed in large media companies that have big projects with a specific ideological position.

The source of a belief is incredibly important. Did this belief come about because of careful observation of the real world, or was it decided upon before any careful analysis of the world was done. The first case is belief that grows out of data and experience. The second is what I would call ideological belief – that which is distinctly not rooted in the real world, but decided upon for other reasons. In the world of business this same distinction is sometimes referred to as evidence-based decision making versus decision-based evidence making.

This is how I draw the distinction between someone who is pushing a predetermined agenda, and someone who is genuinely looking to inform you of the truth of a matter. The really insidious thing is that a person may not be aware of the fact that they are pushing an agenda that is not congruent with the truth.

The nature of belief systems is such that they tend to be self-confirming. In order to not fall into this trap, authors must make a special effort to be open to the idea that there may be more correct beliefs about the world than the ones that they currently hold. Subjecting all ideas (and especially your own beliefs) to skeptical scrutiny is the only sure path to being able to accurately talk about the real world.

Reading/Watching More is Not Enough

I believe that a person must read/watch a wide variety of subjects, authors, and viewpoints in order to gain for themselves the knowledge that is needed in order to distinguish the fact from the fiction.

Many books/shows are only masquerading as non-fiction. It is up to you as the reader/watcher to apply your own knowledge and critical thinking to the media that you experience. Fail to do so, and you are likely to be increasingly misled with regards to the subjects that you care the most about.

I believe that acquiring the mental state of open-minded skepticism is as important as the media you choose to experience.