As we journey with Ong from orality to literacy, he brings to our attention the changing view concerning what we can trust. When literacy began to evolve, courts trusted people's oral accounts of matters more than documents. There are still people whose word is as good a signed document, but I from many I would advise getting a signature. With current technologies it is hard to trust even a notarized document. So what do we turn to from there? For a while, before the age of laptops and digital editing it seemed that video recording was absolute proof. Actually, before that a tape recording worked. If you do not believe me, ask former President Nixon.
When I was a kid, people seemed to trust the nightly news. Now, that seems questionable as well. Certainly being on the internet is not proof. This is the part that I find a bit interesting. These days we question what were once reliable sources even more than ever. I am all for this. It seems that with so much information at hand via newspapers, television, radio, and the internet more people are opting for checking out multiple sources before deciding on the news of the day. I personally have three news sources I use regularly, and cross reference them when something sounds biased. When I was growing up there were two newspapers readily available for delivery or pick up in my hometown. Today there are news stands full of options. Of course the internet makes it easier to get the news without going down to the corner to grab a paper. Still, there is nothing like spending a lazy morning spent curled up with a nice cup of hot chocolate and a thick Sunday edition.
Ong tells us that "media" has little to do with communication; he states that, "it distorts the act of communication beyond recognition" (Ong loc 3218). This, he argues, is because newspapers, broadcasts, etc are a one-way street; there is no one to respond. At first, I was not sure I agreed since we can respond via letters to the editor, phone calls, or other communication to the media. However, after thinking about it for a while, my argument is not valid. The media will select only the feedback that they approve and add it to their agenda. I do not believe all media is bad or untrustworthy. I feel there are many hard working journalists who do their best to bring a us a fair account of the events of the day. That is just it though isn't it? They are telling us what happened; not communicating with us. Communication is a two way street.
So how do we prove something is true? What is trusted now? I would have to say a combination of all material available would have to come together to convince the strictest judges among us. While being this skeptical, especially if it concerns the trustworthiness of another person you may want to go back to the Bible's teachings about judging people. That is good advice. (If you are reading this and you do not know what I am talking about for the love of literature go read a Bible already. I suggest the KJV version, but there are others that will do if you really must use a different version).
There is a lot of work that must be done in the information age. You are responsible for doing your own research before forming conclusions. In an oral society, you looked the man in the eye, shook his hand and it was good and true (or you hoped so, since that was all you had available). Now if you do not do your homework you may easily find yourself in peril. Remember that deal that was too good to be true? Guess what-now your bank account is empty and you are responsible; especially if you did not get all the details.
So, as we evolved from orality to literacy, as I blogged earlier, we became more self aware. However, because of literacy and the gargantuan amount of information at our fingertips, we need to watch out for ourselves as well. The dynamic of community and trust has changed.
No comments:
Post a Comment