Choice is good, right?

In some ways, yes. When faced with a choice, we are forced to think critically about the available options, judge the merit of each one, and ultimately choose whichever seems most suitable. This sort of critical thinking is what allows us to learn and grow. One would think, then, that more options to choose from means more room for growth.

However, it has become clear that a point of too much choice is possible: a point of being overwhelmed by a tidal wave of options, which leaves us capable of skimming only the surface of each possibility. Thanks to the explosion of the internet and all the avenues for expression it provides, this is the point of overload our news media has now reached.

Take, for example, the United States’ news media. Before the emergence of the Internet, Americans could get their news from television, print media, or the radio.[1] Moreover, there were only 3 major television news networks to choose from: NBC, ABC, and CBS (otherwise known as “the big three”).[2] Many consider this “old media” to represent the golden standard of news media: editing standards were higher and access to publishing was less widespread, so news sources were, on the whole, viewed with a higher degree of legitimacy.

However, bias has always been present in the media, no matter how much we try to avoid it. It could be said back then, for example, that NBC told the American people how to think, since television was the main source of news for most and there were barely any alternatives available.[3] But thanks to the Internet, and the incredible ease with which anyone can now publish their ideas, we have a massive abundance of choice. Therefore, our opinions and beliefs are no longer dictated by any one news source. That means we see things in a more balanced, unbiased way now, right?

Wrong.

Well, partially wrong. It is true that the explosion of internet media – online journals, blogs, social media, etc. – has given a voice to those who had previously been voiceless. This expansion is undeniably a good thing: there is always value in diversity of thought, as it fosters healthy debates and enlightened ideas. This is how it should be, at least in theory. In reality, it is quite the opposite for many. Thanks to this broad accessibility, individuals can now almost without fail find a source which caters exactly to how they think and what they believe. And once you find something you perfectly agree with, why would you bother reading anything else?

With an ever-expanding range of news sources, the assumption would be that our generation consumes more news media than any previous generation. However, the complete opposite is true. A large portion of young people go newsless every day, despite having a greater variety than ever of news sources and outlets.[4] Furthermore, of those who do regularly follow the news, readers/viewers of differing political beliefs have been found to inhabit completely different spheres: there is virtually no crossover between the most widely consumed news sources of each group.[5]

This dichotomy means that they are infinitely more likely to interact with likeminded individuals than those who hold a different set of beliefs.[6] Without interaction between those who hold dissenting opinions, and without any acknowledgment of those news sources which contradict one’s own beliefs, where is there room for healthy, open-minded debate? As Barry Schwartz writes in his book The Paradox of Choice, “The fact that some choice is good doesn’t necessarily mean that more choice is better. […] There is a cost to an overload of choice.”[7]

He goes on to argue that too much choice can lead to wasted energy trying to decide on the best option.[8] In sum, when it comes to media, our solution to this overload of choice has been to surround ourselves with precise sources which align perfectly with how we think, while virtually ignoring those which don’t. The increased choice brought on by the explosion of the internet (and the ease with which anyone can now publish their thoughts) has led to a paradoxical closing of our minds. The blinders have gone on, and we have become accustomed to shutting out those dissenting views.

On the whole, our generation has been spoiled by this ability to filter out undesired options. Take an application like Netflix. You get to set filters and preferences, and narrow down your options to precisely what appeals to you. The things you find unappealing, or that make you uncomfortable, will remain hidden by your filters. This general attitude – one which has accustomed us to ignore anything we don’t like – has permeated our lives in every way. The same goes for dating applications. Don’t like the vibe you get from a potential partner after studying his photo for 1.7 seconds? Swipe left and he’s gone.

I don’t mean to sound overly pessimistic. I believe that the expansion of accessible media can be an incredibly useful tool for critical thinking, allowing new beliefs to grow, and wading through bias and falsehood. The key to evolving ideas is exposure to thoughts that contradict our own. With the incredible range of opinions and beliefs which are now easily expressed daily, it should be quite easy to find those dissenting ideas and take them into account in order to reformulate our own beliefs.

However, the huge range of media can also be dangerous, as it can lead to the absolute opposite. It is human nature to avoid the things that make us uncomfortable; it follows that we tend to avoid ideas that we dislike, if doing so is possible. The specificity with which common news sources now exist allows for that avoidance, and that is a very concerning prospect.

So is this overload of choice really making us any better informed than those who had to choose between just three television networks? Or is it simply leading to increasingly stubborn-minded individuals, who block out all dissenting views? As much as I wish I could say the former is the case, I fear that the latter is what has come to fruition.

But choice is good!

….Right?

WRITTEN BY:LAURA THISTLE

References

[1] Parker, Jonathan. “Chapter 6: The Media” from Developments in American Politics 6. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Page 86.

[2] Ibid 86.

[3] Ibid 86.

[4] Pew Research Center. Trends in News Consumption: 1991 – 2012. “Section 1: Watching, Reading, and Listening to the News.” September 27, 2012. Accessed February 3, 2014. http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/section-1-watching-reading-and-listening-to-the-news-3/

[5] Pew Research Center. Political Polarization & Media Habits. October 21, 2014. Accessed February 3, 2014. http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/

[6] Ibid. Accessed February 3, 2014.

[7] Schwartz, Barry. The Paradox of Choice. New York: HarperCollins, 2004. Page 3.

[8] Ibid 4.