

Barack Obama's rant against technology: Don't shoot the messenger - bensummers
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16109292

======
gizmo
I think the problem Obama hints at (but not really explains) is very real.
We're the first generation with all the world's information at our fingertips.

We could all be polymaths, we could all get sound understanding of Philosophy,
Math, Physics, Chemistry, Politics and so forth... but largely, we don't.

Learning has never been easier, because you can get information in the format
you want (audio, video, text, or interactive content) with a click of the
mouse. You can pick between course material from dozens of universities and
you can read papers written by academics all over the world. And yet, largely,
we don't.

We read blog posts that have near zero information content, and the ever
present discussion threads where only the least controversial and inane posts
rise to the top. But why? Why do we do this, when we know that we'd get much,
much more from the internet if we used it to read well written and thoughtful
content instead?

Most likely it's just human nature. We're addicted to small bite-sized chunks
of non-information. There are a lot of people who can read the internet all
day, ever day, only to take breaks by watching TV shows and playing video
games. Without ever getting bored. Day, after day, after day.

~~~
9oliYQjP
While I admit Obama has some points, the discussion is far too complex to
address in a presidential speech and I don't think he struck the proper tone.
_A man with one watch knows the time; a man with two watches is never quite
sure._ His speech is a failure, because I think it was the effects of having
so much information -- as the quote above mentions -- that he wanted to convey
rather than the fact that we have this information in the first place.
Presidential speeches are all about take-aways, and this was a miserable
failure. The take-aways were "Xboxes, iPads, and technology are diversions"
which I'm pretty sure was not his intention.

We live in a world where the uneducated and uninformed speak in terms of
certainty and absolutes. Liberals have long believed that if only you can
debate and reason with your counterparts, you can sway them to your side.
Conservatives figured out that this wasn't how human nature worked and I think
the Republicans were particularly good throughout the mid 90s and this past
decade, at providing a more reassuring world view that is black and white. The
more educated we get, the more uncertain we can be about our opinions. I think
Obama wanted to point out that the educated might lose control of political
power. There is a very real possibility of a reality similar to that of
Idiocracy taking hold, and I think Obama wanted to challenge his audience to
ward this off. In order to do this, they'll have to learn how to speak to
people and be masters of the human psyche. So it's kind of ironic that Obama
failed so miserably at delivering his message. I'm sure he's kicking himself
because the whole debate is now being framed around "is technology good or
bad?".

~~~
asnyder
This happens often in Obama's speeches. If you watch them whole they're
insightful, well thought out, and very meaningful. However, both the visual
and printed press have no patience to actually deliver the full content, but
rather will always take a soundbite, or quote out of context, thus leaving the
rest of the speech meaningless. It's unfortunate that the majority of
Americans don't actually read or watch the speeches in whole.

Personally, I think this is part of what he was getting at.

------
jgrahamc
Why didn't he mention TV when saying "information becomes a distraction, a
diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment"?

Oh wait, he mentioned all media in the actual, in context quote:

    
    
      And meanwhile, you're coming of age in a 24/7 media 
      environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and 
      exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't 
      always rank that high on the truth meter. And with iPods and 
      iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know 
      how to work -- (laughter) -- information becomes a 
      distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather 
      than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of 
      emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on 
      you; it's putting new pressure on our country and on our 
      democracy.
    

Way to go Economist for taking his quote out of context.

~~~
asdflkj
Obama didn't even use the word "technology". How do you go from "gadgets" to
"technology"? Actually, if you're The Economist, the same way you write most
articles about things whose ideology and political affiliations don't agree
with yours.

This is why I particularly dislike The Economist. They are shrewd. Fox News
(or, say, The Guardian) poisons the minds of idiots; The Economist poisons my
own unless I am extra careful.

~~~
jbooth
Yeah, the Economist is good for foreign reporting and business reporting but
since Obama's been elected they've been so clearly biased and/or recycling
silly 30-year-old Washington conventional wisdom that I actually didn't renew
my subscription.

~~~
asdflkj
Actually, The Economist is particularly bad for foreign reporting, because it
is here that their fairly intelligent readers are most willing to trust them.
Almost all other Anglophone news outlets don't even make a pretense of
providing serious foreign reporting, which gives The Economist a sort of
monopoly. Also, BS is harder to recognize when it has no implications for you
or anyone you know.

[http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?Story...](http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?Story_ID=1259408)

~~~
jbooth
True, good points. In a lot of their foreign reporting you do see 2 sides to
the story and it's less connected to any general ideological principles that
the economist would be concerned with, so I guess I'm generally more impressed
with it than the american/british/euro reporting. European stuff I just assume
that they're biased and I don't know enough about the situation to pick up on
it so I skim it and try not to draw conclusions.

------
DrSprout
Obama wasn't ranting against technology. He was making a nuanced argument
about our new information society, and being prescriptive about how we should
interact with the Internet.

To roughly paraphrase what Obama said, quit dicking around on Twitter,
Facebook, Reddit, etc. and look for good articles. You also might think about
writing some, or even reading a good book. That's not in any way technophobic.
He was just doing what any public figure should do at a commencement address,
which is tell the graduates to use their education to lead meaningful and
productive lives.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
>To roughly paraphrase what Obama said, quit dicking around on Twitter,
Facebook, Reddit, etc. and look for good articles.

But sometimes I _want_ to dick around with enjoyable distractions.

~~~
misterbwong
He didn't say _never_ dick around with twitter, etc. In the context of this
quote, he's saying that for many people, it's gotten to the point where the
dicking around has become a _constant_ distraction from anything more real (or
good).

------
andrewtj
_“WITH iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations—none of which I know how to
work—information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment,
rather than a tool of empowerment.”_

Anyone got a pointer to the context of this quote? This piece relies heavily
on it and it reads to me like it may well be innocuous.

~~~
gizmo
It's absolutely ripped out of context.

Obama argues that when you're drinking from the information firehose you may
lose track of more important things. A completely obvious and very dangerous
trend.

Full transcript here: [http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-obama-hampton-address-
transcri...](http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-obama-hampton-address-
transcript,0,7478536.story)

~~~
mynameishere
His real problem is that the media is no longer centrally controlled.

 _And meanwhile, you're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that
bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of
arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter._

"Some" of which don't. And "some" of which do, which is the real problem. The
fact that he is objecting to "all kinds of arguments" whatever their content
might be, is a giveaway.

 _information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment,
rather than a tool of empowerment_

Well, if you're old enough to remember when there were 3 channels and 1 local
paper, you know that "information", such as it was, was a sedative at best.
Sit in front of the TV, believe every sugary bit of crap on the 11 o clock
news, go to bed. Nobody, and I mean _nobody_ , was ever "empowered" by the
media configuration as it existed through the 20th century. But for a
centralized government, it was ideal--very empowering.

~~~
yardie
"His real problem is that the media is no longer centrally controlled."

No longer centrally controlled? You know we are down to 5 distributors that
control an overwhelming amount of the music and films that we listen to or
watch. Add the fact that Comcast just bought NBC Universal and you can assume
the media is more concentrated by a few more than ever. But as long as we have
1000 blogs carrying the exact same message than it doesn't appear that way.

Which is worse 10 independent newspapers or 1000 blogs, financed and
controlled by 10 people.

------
ZachPruckowski
I will offer irrefutable proof that Obama is right. Try to visit a site like
TvTropes without winding up wasting half your day :-)

~~~
eru
<http://tvtropes.org/>

(Lowering the barriers to wasting your time.)

~~~
wlievens
You should be downvoted for the horrendeous crime you just commited; but
instead I upvoted and managed to avoid going to _that site_. I'm either
growing up or growing old.

------
smutticus
Not everyone who criticizes technology is a luddite. There are some valid
criticisms of technology as a waste of time and a diversion. This article
doesn't give enough context to the quote before diving in and passing judgment
on Obama.

~~~
jpdbaugh
Exactly. I for one, and probably many others on this site, hate social
networking. I really believe it dumbs down human interaction and that the
South Park episode on it really summed up the issue. However, I do write code
for a living so I am far from a luddite.

~~~
rbanffy
Social networks are not completely useless - Twitter, Facebook (and here in
Brazil, Orkut) are useful tools to find old friends you lost contact with or
to start conversations and point to interesting things you find. I get many
tips from the hacker news popular feed.

But I really, really don't care for the farms people manage, the hearts people
get and so on. I don't need a second job managing a farm.

~~~
jpdbaugh
I do think that Twitter is useful for self branding. Especially if you are
famous. For me though, friends are old friends for a reason. If I still want
to talk to someone I have their contact information.

------
paulnelligan
Emmm, Socrates was right

I know I remember things waaaay better when someone TELLS me something, versus
when I read it in a book or online.

~~~
lidmith
If I have an interesting conversation with a friend, and we're discussing
something, I will remember it pretty well.

If I am listening to a professor read through a lecture, with little to no
interaction from the students, I am not as likely to remember it as if I had
read it from a book.

~~~
protomyth
I have often found that most college lectures have a hard time with distance
learning. There normal lecture style translates very badly on a TV screen and
people tend to fall asleep in front of a boring TV. The best distance learning
teachers I have found come from a community college background. They tend to
have to be more interesting to their students and know how to work an
audience.

------
rbanffy
I find the fact the writer focused on the wrong thing - the devices being
denounced as bad - and miss the message - that important information is
drowning in a sea of distracting, enjoyable trivia - telling.

I too worry for this Facebook generation. I would be happier if they spent
their time becoming smarter. We will need lots of smart people in the future.

------
dan_sim
I'm relieved to see that the most rated comments are on Obama's side. Even the
"arranged" quote from the Economist sounds true to me.

