i·con·o·clasm
īˈkänəˌklazəm/
noun
īˈkänəˌklazəm/
noun
1.
the action of attacking or assertively rejecting cherished beliefs
and institutions or established values and practices.
2.
the rejection or destruction of religious images as heretical; the
doctrine of iconoclasts.
I
am going to talk about the first of these definitions and how the
last hundred years of progress has been anything but progress. The
Internet was initially hailed as the savior of freedom and
Democracy by bringing truth to the entire World. But has it, really?
When I was growing up there were very few people who had television sets, somewhat more that had radios, but we all had access to newspapers and magazines. Our primary source for news of the world and events was of course, those newspapers and magazines. The seventies had not yet arrived and therefore the revolution in advertising that permitted the rise of manipulation of the masses had not yet occurred. Still, we had bad journalism.
We had a name for this journalism, it was called "Yellow Journalism" a pejorative term for certain and one that would not be permitted in today's uber politically correct world. The institution persists to this day though no one dares call it that.
Frank
Luther Mott defines
yellow journalism in terms of five characteristics:
-
scare headlines in huge print, often of minor news
-
lavish use of pictures, or imaginary drawings
-
use of faked interviews, misleading headlines, pseudoscience, and a parade of false learning from so-called experts
-
emphasis on full-color Sunday supplements, usually with comic strips
-
dramatic sympathy with the "underdog" against the system.
Sound
familiar? It should, because these five characteristics apply to
almost every single post
on social media. We once believed that the Internet, by simply
bringing information to those who did not have it, would solve the
World's problems. “Informed
reason, according to Plato, is the faculty best suited to make all
the right and necessary decisions in a person’s life.
“Unfortunately, Plato ran
smack into another platitude:
“
You
can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
“
The
Internet has indeed provided vastly improve access to information,
but it has done nothing to expand upon the human capacity to reason,
in fact, it almost seems to have had the exact opposite effect.
Rather
than enabling iconoclasm by providing access to multiple viewpoints
and ideas, it has resulted in an entrenchment due mostly to human
nature. Instead of expanding our horizons with new ideas, we have
instead focused ever more narrowly on our cherished beliefs, picking
and choosing from an ever more vast sea of “information”; much of
it of dubious value, to support and defend our cherished beliefs,
institutions, values and practices.
We
post on a social media site and someone of opposite viewpoint posts
back. Do we listen? Do we objectively consider the validity of his or
her arguments? No, we do not, we delete the offending post and ban
the author from our sight forever more. We use our new found access
to build ever larger walled gardens around our beliefs admitting of
no disagreement with our cherished point of view. Only those who
agree with us and hold the same beliefs we do are permitted within
our garden and woe be unto the unbeliever who dares to intrude.
Instead
of a spirited discourse, an exchange of ideas espoused by Plato, we
instead become ever more intractable, ever more entrenched in our
ways, defending dogma behind a wall of refusal to think.
“You
can lead a human
to knowledge,
but you can't make it think.
“