SacredFacts

Web culture v. slow reading: does your brain hurt?

If you havn't picked up on it already you need to sort out your rss feeds. But there's been a really interesting debate breaking out about whether the internet changes the way you think. I've missed the moment but have been meaning to join in for a week or so. It started with Nicholas Carr in The Atlantic suggesting Google (now a synonym for the web) might be making us stupid. Actually his argument is more subtle but reflects what a number of others have observed: regular web reading and browsing makes it harder to concentrate on a tough read in a book. Among those to pick up on it were Bill Thompson who seems to conclude that rather than changing our brains, online culture simply makes us lazy. Along the way he cites John Battelle's repudiation of Carr and cites Susan Greenfield's book suggesting that screen culture is less enriching than the pages of a book. A theme picked up by John Naughton in The Observer, and doubtless a few others I've missed, who suggests it's not a question of good or bad - just evolution.

Nothing very new here. My father had a book given to him as a boy on "the Art of Reading" - collected lectures from Arthur Quiller Couch - in an attempt to encourage concentration and serious study and combat what he called his "butterfly mind" (he would have been at home on the web). Serious instruction is an impulse which still lingers in some quarters.

For my part, I definitely find it harder to read than I used to but put that down to lack of time and fatigue. My kids spend less time reading than I did at their age - but then they have much more choice. I do think that the linking culture on the net, whilst wonderful, encourages a superficial engagement with subjects rather than immersion. (Take this topic for example!).
When I read a book I also make connections, but they take longer and are deeper to come to fruition. So reading Tony Judt's latest book on the Twentieth Century, for example, will take me a week but will plant thoughts and connections which will take several more weeks to uncover or get round to reading in turn. But I will understand a lot more than I would from scanning some links and Googling. No problem with enjoying the benefits of both of course.
Maybe after calls for slow-food and slow-journalism it's time to remind ourselves about slow-reading.

What are YOU listening to?

Lunch with Lloyd Shepherd last week - we discussed our regular podcast listens. The discussion turned to the difference between time-shifted radio (ie what the BBC or NPR offers) amateur content and the "semi-professional" content - shows that havn't or couldn't get a broadcast airing and wouldnt exist if it wasn't for podcasting, but are high quality. This last category, we agreed, is the most interesting.

He swapped me Jodcast (news of the Universe from Jodrell Bank) for Coverville (weekly compilation of great cover versions). We both agree it was a fair swap....

So what are you listening to?

Al's Climate Crusade

I promised to reflect on the Al Gore road show. Having presented his slides 1100 times (I'm told), won an oscar with the documentary and presented his five point plan to Congress he's moving up a gear. He's seeking to recruit supporters to take his slide show and cascade presentations around the world - providing in depth "training sessions" for them - and is planning to spend $100 million a year for the next three years on a media campaign, starting this year with the Live Earth global concerts on July 7th (7/7/07). Who has time to run for President? There's no question that the charisma, energy, eloquence and passion of an A list politician with a mission is powerful. But what of the content? He's impressive on the science, but more impressive on the politics - clearly attempting to provide hope for those who might despair in the face of his apocalyptic warnings.

The event brought together a collection of CEOs, government officials, NGOs, teachers and others - all pretty much supporters (I made it clear I was there as observer not advocate). On hand were scientists Sir Peter Knight from Imperial College and the Director of the British Antarctic Survey Prof Chris Rapley.
They asserted there were no serious sceptics about Climate Change (but were very defensive about Channel 4's "Great Global Warming Swindle" going to great lengths to criticise the programme, the commission and outline the flaws..I would have expected greater confidence in discussing it).
Overall it reinforced my view that - whether or not you believe climate change is caused by man - no-one seems to question global warming is happening and that, as a precaution alone, we should cut CO2 emissions which will mean compromising our lifestyles. Which is where it starts to get really interesting...Recognition of Climate Change extends across the political spectrum. What to do about it, does not.

I then read a piece in the latest British Journalism Review by Eleni Andreadis and Joe Smith about media coverage of climate change. They rightly say:

The history of climate-change reporting is one of a long period of passivity punctured by a more recent burst of alarmism. ...it is essential to recognise that climate change is, by its nature, a very tricky issue to cover.

Reporting risk is never straightforward.
They argue that journalistic scepticism and weakness on economics are to blame for a delay in public understanding of the seriousness of climate change. Plus too great a weight being given to maverick voices in the search for "balance". Interestingly, Gore said the scientific culture of peer review and scepticism was also interpreted as uncertainty about the science by the media and had contributed to some confusion.

They conclude:

Journalism has helped to bring much of the British public to a new understanding of its precipitous relationship with its environment. It now has a key role in provoking and presenting the political and economic debates about how we can progress towards an ecologically sustainable society.

In other words, news coverage should move on from the science to the politics and economics of hard choices. I agree we need to invest heavily in reporting those elements, which take in every aspect of how we live our lives and how we work. But I suspect in confronting those hard choices, people aren't ready to leave the scientific debate quite yet.

Assault on Reason

I've spent 36 hours in Cambridge watching the Al Gore roadshow as he debated climate change and explained his "Inconvenient Truth" presentation to an invited group from business, politics, NGOs and the media. I'll post on the Global Warming aspects when I've thought about them a bit more. But I was struck by the former VPs strong views on media. They are not new - he outlined them at the New York WeMedia conference in 2005 and also at the launch of his movie. He has a book coming out shortly - The Assault on Reason - which will expand further. The subtitle -How the Politics of Blind Faith Subvert Wise Decision-making - gives you the drift. Applied to the media it's an argument against politicisation and in favour of rational, evidence-based reporting. A defence of Enlightenment values. To that extent, something I believe in myself...

But Gore goes further and makes it a moral issue, quoting Scott Peck saying Evil is the absence of truth "so reporting something you know not to be true is evil"...and retelling the story of the German philosopher after the end of the second world war who studied how the Third Reich had taken power and concluded the" first significant symptom of their descent into hell was this: ‘All questions of fact became questions of power’..."

He then made a passing reference to Adam Curtis's documentary, The Century of Self charting the rise of PR as the beginning of a move away from rational argument into journalism more concerned with emotional engagement and entertainment values.

All this in parenthesis to his main subject. It was, he said, our "moral duty to live in truth". He was as passionate about this as he was about the climate. I wouldn't want to be a young producer on his network, Current TV, cheating an edit...

(NB He also paraphrased Bobby Kennedy's speech about the value of the GDP when arguing that consumerism wasn't any measure of quality of life. I wonder if anyone else spotted it!)

Warm for the time of year

This week Frances Cairncross, Chairman of the British Association for the Advancement of Science warned that the climate is heating up and we badly need policies to help us cope. It's an issue which is finally getting real traction.

David Aaronovitch in The Times discusses the political positions on climate change and the natural scepticism some policies provoke.

The Al Gore bandwagon rolls on promoting his climate change film and book and website from Hay to Edinburgh to Sky News and around the world.

Meanwhile James Lovelock, founder of the Gaia theory, is apocalyptic in his new book, but believes nuclear power is at least part of the answer. A view shared by the government . Others fear the risks around nuclear power - not least Charles Clarke this week warning the government's energy review overlooked the risk of terrorism.

Someone told me that if the government gave low energy lightbulbs to every house in the country it would cost less per year than a nuclear power station and save more energy than one would produce. Somehow, that sounds apocryphal. Which has always been the problem with this subject. Not enough clear, firm facts on which to base choices and a lot of vested interests directing the debate.

But there seems to be unanimity now across the political spectrum that it's happening and the consequences will be truly difficult for future generations.

So I've made one choice. I'll seek to make my household carbon neutral by the end of the year. Watch for updates on progress.

RIP

Sad news that Australian wildlife presenter Steve Irwin has been killed by a stingray spine in the heart. He was popular in our house. His zoo in Queensland, Australia Zoo, used to be home to Harriet, a giant tortoise allegedly brought from the Galapagos Islands by Charles Darwin. But she too died, of heart failure, a month or so ago, aged 175.... Her longevity was said to be due to a stress free life. Something that couldnt be said for Crocodile Hunter Steve.