The Journal

Issue date: 4/19/07 Section: Opinion/Editorial

Alexandra Smith

With technology of the Internet, 24-hour cable news, online news and other revolutionary news sources, the American public has information at its fingertips. With the click of a button, we can find almost any name, date or fact we want. However, the effects of this available technology are not always positive - we as Americans may have more resources than we did 10 or 20 years ago, but this doesn't necessarily make us smarter.


A study released April 15 by the Pew Research Center evaluates public knowledge of current affairs as changed by news and information revolutions. The study compares general knowledge of the American public in 1989 to the general knowledge in 2007.


Questions on the survey asked Americans to name the vice president, the president of Russia and the party controlling the House. The survey also asked people to identify public figures such as Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.


Even with changes in information technology, the poll shows Americans are not as well versed in current news events as they were almost 20 years ago. For example, in 1989, 74 percent of Americans could name the vice president of the United States, Dan Quayle. In 2007, only 69 percent could recall Dick Cheney.


In 1989, 74 percent of Americans could name their state governor. In 2007, only 66 percent could do so.


It's disconcerting this survey shows no big change from 1989 to 2007. After all, advances in technology have been widespread. Current events are readily available to our modern society 24/7. We have the ability to access a variety of news Web sites at our leisure. We have network news programming in addition to 24-hour news networks such as MSNBC and CNN. We have streaming radio and the option of being exposed to news whenever we choose.


Not surprisingly, this increase in news technology has not resulted in an increase of knowledge. After all, technology also gives us the freedom of choice. It allows us to choose exactly what we want to see, read and listen to. It allows us an opportunity to bypass what we decide we don't care about. We are not required to learn anything we don't choose to learn.


It's not that news sources have stopped reporting on current events. All of the information we might want is there. The news sources we rely on are not ignoring such events and important information; they just aren't giving these things the weight they deserve. Unfortunately, these news organizations assume what we as a society deem important. They give us the option of clicking on links that relate to issues we care about. They determine the top story of the day for us. Because of this, 34 percent of American people can't name the vice president of the United States - but I bet they can name the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby.


Advancing technology will not singlehandedly make us a more informed society. Having such information at our fingertips does not force us to absorb basic current events and newsworthy figures, to understand what is news or to even be exposed to news. As technology advances, we as a society have to take responsibility for pursuing the information we need to know.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools