Unless you’ve lived Ted Kaczynski style this past year, nobody in their right mind would say it’s been a harmonious one – politically, socially, or economically. I guess you can say a lot of people are pissed off. They’re pissed at heathcare reform, they’re pissed at the economy, and they’re pissed at a gazillion other little things like the I-Pad. Let’s face it, in America righteous indignation is in.

With information as accessible as it ever was, current news spreads fast.  But, is that a good thing? Is there a dark side to having quick access to information? I don’t doubt that there are many, many benefits,  but it’s also plausible that a universal acceptance of new media can lead to an inevitable playing toward the lowest common denominator?

Like sex, anger and frustration sell remarkably well.

Now, to be fair there’s a long tradition in journalism of people playing to others feelings, and new media doesn’t change that, but it’s also realistic to believe we are witnessing a sort of megaphone effect. People naturally look to validate their own beliefs and we all have source biases. But, given that there are so many sources out there the promulgation of information means that today it’s possible to validate anything. Once upon a time objective research was considered to be important. Today it garners CNN’s ratings.

As time goes on and the general public “backs up” their arguments using easily found resources, I suspect, they will also come to more rigidly defend them. After all if you can find it quickly then it must be true, right? The more rigidly the general public defends their arguments, of course, the more likely we are to see an increase in the volume of national discourse.

If this is the case, then the free flow of information may actually come at a cost. Blogs, Twitter,  and the changing technology driving shifts in information seeking behaviors… I see them as partially to blaim.

Late yesterday, I found out that my professional organization’s membership – the Special Library Association – voted down it’s name change proposal. The reasons were fairly obvious. While a most members think that we need to branch out to other disciplines (which we do) the alternative name, well, sucked. The Association for Strategic Knowledge Professionals just didn’t strike a chord. Neither did it’s acronym of ASKPro.

You would think, then, that the leadership would tread more carefully when posting news to the internet on the topic but this hasn’t been the case. An already oft-quoted blurb from the SLA website reads, “voting in record numbers, SLA members failed to approve a proposal to change the organization’s name to the Association for Strategic Knowledge Professionals.” Note the word failed. While I will admit that I did vote for the name change I’m a little relieved that it didn’t go through. Most importantly, it’s also worth pointing out that the real failure here wasn’t on the part of SLA’s membership. It was on the part of name change proponents to find an adequate replacement.

This week the Special Library Association’s leadership announced a new name… which they recommend we adopt as part of their ongoing realignment project. Henceforth, there is a chance I’ll be a member of the Association of Knowledge Professionals or “ASKPro.” The chance is small, for sure, but it’s not completely out of the question. Like my Millennial peers I’m torn as to how I’ll vote .

I am sure of two things though:

1) I am Librarian. This doesn’t change the fact that I can fill into multiple roles either. That’s the nature of the profession. It’s changing along with technology and as a traditionally older group retires. We are vast. We contain multitudes.

2) This issue/debate won’t be resolved until I’m much older. Anything and everything that has to do with the transmittal of information is in flux. It’s going to take people a long time to adapt to any switch from analog to digital technology. We don’t even know how far the shift will go.

If  Sen. Gary Nadler ever runs for a statewide office there’s a good chance I won’t vote for him.

I don’t know much about his voting record and I don’t care about his politics. I just don’t think I could vote for someone who has repeatedly helped to kill proposals that would allow laptops on the floor of the Missouri State Senate. While I respect his “love of tradition” and his concern that technology can distract people from important business… he has disregarded a few important things:

• Instant access to information could improve debate and discussion.
• The only reason a laptops  haven’t been on the floor of the Senate floor… is because they are relatively new.
• Senators are not in High School. A computer might distract them from time to time but they’re adults. They can focus just fine.
• Opposing the use of laptops or similar equipment makes him come across as a Luddite.

I know that technology has it’s share of problems but barring it from an important institution is not realistic.