News & Views
The Fate of Wisdom in the Age of Information

We are told that many American newspapers are facing
imminent demise, partly because news is becoming available
at an ever-increasing speed and an ever-decreasing cost to the
consumer, through websites, blogs, RSS feeds, the twitter,
and the rest.  Yet, the fact that more and more people can
now get their news in ways that are faster, cheaper, easier,
more convenient, and even more entertaining than ever
before does not, in itself, say anything about the state of their
understanding.  In all likelihood, the speed and ease of news
delivery on any given topic has already far exceeded our
ability to digest it fast enough, for there really is a limit to
how much information the human mind can absorb, process,
analyze, and store at a particular time, given that Microsoft
upgrades for our minds are not (yet!) available.

The incredible progress in the flow of information does not
necessarily makes us wiser, or even better informed.  We still
need theoretical frameworks to help us sort through all the
incoming data, figure out what fits where, and interpret the
information in terms of what it means.

As Prof. Howard Gardner explains, one of the most
sought-after skills is soon going to be the ability to examine
large amounts of data, find out just what is relevant, and
synthesize that into meaningful and usable knowledge.  The
latter happens to have a much greater value for the human
species than the endless streams of apparently incoherent
information that our computers and cell phones keep
throwing at us every day.  Prof. Gardner calls this ability the
"synthesizing mind."
Made, not Begotten

Raw data is converted into information by the synthesizing
capacity of the human mind; information is turned into news
by a further act of interpretation, judgment, and synthesis.  
By the time we encounter "news," it has already been shaped
and re-shaped by factors that are not entirely objective.

Any purported synthesis of a wide-range of information is
always based upon certain value positions.  In other words,
whenever someone offers us a big picture of any kind, their
vision represents a particular arrangement of several
elements.  These include: (1) verifiable facts, selected and
viewed in accordance with specific criteria, (2) assumptions
drawn from past experience and/or training, and (3)
convictions about value, worth, and meaning.  

This means that even experts within the same discipline are
able to look at the same set of verifiable facts but draw very
different conclusions, and, therefore, offer very different, and
even contradictory, versions of the big picture.

The news industry is a massive exercise in synthesis; "views"
are therefore inseparable from what we call "news."  In fact,
there is no such thing as news independent of the views of
those present it for our consumption.  News is born only as a
result of the cooperative activity between objective and
subjective factors.  What we read in newspapers, websites,
blogs, or watch on television is not raw data; it is raw data as
selected, interpreted, judged, and packaged by particular
human beings with particular views and interests.
This is not to say that all attempts to present a big picture are
therefore flawed or futile; it only means that the personal
values and inclinations of any given synthesizer necessarily
become a significant part of his/her vision of reality.  Just as
an artist puts a part of his own being into his creation, a
historian does the same when he provides an academic
account of a past event; or when a political scientist explains
his understanding of the political reality; or when a team of
journalists plow through a large amount of data and then tell
us what it all means and why is it worth paying attention.

We do need synthesizers, as Howard Gardner argues, because
we cannot do all the synthesis on our own.  And yet, it is
important to be aware of the values, biases, views, and
interests of those from whom we get our news.

The following are a few of my favorite sources.  Do not trust
them blindly, however.  Always use multiple sources of news,
watch for contradictions, and keep your own critical faculties
in working condition.