As the wealth of media information we are bombarded with continues to increase, it is necessary to tailor the pipes in order to receive just what we want. Two recently released books, Data Smog by David Shenk, and Breaking Up America by Joseph Turow, raise important questions about what this trend will do to a society that might increasingly fail to understand itself as a whole.
"My message," says Shenk, "is that the information revolution is a very positive thing, but that it has these unintended side effects. We're very optimistic, but we shouldn't let the optimism turn to zeal."
The fragmentation of society, as an outcome of the enormous amount of information, is described by both books as built to feed the advertising world's desire to reach - and create - niche markets. In Data Smog, Shenk looks very broadly at the information overload in our society, and focuses on the downsides, from the point of view of someone firmly convinced of the utility of the processes and technologies he warns against.
"On a personal level it makes us all richer. We can get more and more specific and delve deeper into subjects that interest us. And with electronic technology we can keep in touch with those people, but there is a clear social cost to it," Shenk says. "What we're giving up is general knowledge and information shared with a broader segment of the population."
More narrow in scope, but as broad in implication, Turow chronicles with great historical detail the rise of the ad world's hunger to target increasingly smaller groups - in many cases working hard to shape their audiences by discouraging those whom they don't want to fit in. Turow argues that taken as a whole, these trends are encouraging "gated communities of perception" occupied by "image tribes" that communicate only with those they identify as being like themselves.
Turow's focus on the advertising world stems from his view that ad agencies have a deep understanding, on a practical as well as theoretical level, of how American society functions. Looking over many years of Advertising Age, Turow tries to analyze the messages these agencies send, their effects on other agencies, and the future world they are working together to create. This almost archeological approach creates an air of obsession, and it is fascinating to read Turow documenting the effects of speeches and memos that reverberate throughout the ad industry.
Turow, pointing out that he is not interested in wallowing in nostalgia, says he wants to address an imbalance: "Diversity is being defined by people going into their own little media areas and talking about themselves to each other." He'd like to see them poke their heads out to argue in a larger social arena.
Though, neither of the authors have any deep advice toward resolving the problems they address, Shenk offers a bit of practical encouragement. "We have an obligation as citizens to not spend too much time in our own specialized tribes.... This is something that would have done us good before the Internet, obviously, but as the world becomes more divided it's something that we need to remind ourselves of."
Turow says he tried to come up with solutions, but could convince neither himself nor his editors of their ultimate effectiveness.
