I said it once. I said it twice. I even said it a third time. Now, the internet utopians have shame on their hands. The message, as they say, might be the medium but what happens when a medium encourages people to stop double-checking their facts?

I’m talking here, of course, about the failure of the media, the government and the “blogosphere” to handle the Shirley Shirod case.

In case you aren’t familiar, three weeks ago a conservative pundit posted an online video of Mrs. Shirod, a Department of Agriculture official, speaking on race and racism. A previous victim, Shirley spoke candidly about her experiences but several statements were used to claim reverse discrimination. To make a long story short, the media picked up on the clip, she was fired, and nobody verified anything. Then the truth came out – her story was a tale of redemption. The clips where out of context.

Over the past year or two, Nicholas Carr has been arguing with journalists and new media advocates about the merits of the Internet. His argument isn’t so much that the Internet is bad as that it encourages short-sighted behavior.

This is the basic idea:

The net allows for quick, easy access to information. Moreover, it’s easy to produce, publish and edit electronic material. Part of new media’s success is due to it’s ease of use and web accessibility. But, in making things easier and more accessible an over-reliance on the internet encourages users to think superficially. Sources, facts and opinions are questioned less.

In short, Carr’s thesis is that the internet works well because it feeds into human nature. Interactivity is an impulsive behavior. But, our innate proclivities often result in negative consequences. Like people getting  fired. The fact that a book titled “Don’t Make Me Think“  epitomizes a mainstream approach to web development speaks volumes about it’s merits and demerits.

At it’s best the web is intuitive to users and creates a democratizing effect. We can all act on instinct, skim a page, or post to Facebook. It is also true, however, that an over-reliance on intuition does not lend well to careful observation.

Don’t get me wrong. I think the Internet is a great thing. It’s perfectly feasible for people to learn to use it in a responsible way. To do that, though, I think requires the careful cultivation of our habits. Once upon a time focused thought was encouraged. Now, we rush to use computers as a “time saver.”

Being able to read does not make one fully literate. Neither does being able to use the internet. Yet, we continue to be obsessed with accessibility and being able to find information as quick as possible.

Bad idea. Here’s why.

Once upon a time publishing was a controlled, one-shot process. A lot of time and effort went into printing material. Now, anyone can publish to the web and it’s easy to have trouble distinguishing between “good” and “bad” information. There’s so much! Format, or creator, doesn’t necessarily determine quality but we aren’t taught how to identify quality information. I never took a class to tell the truth from lies. Most people don’t underlying mechanisms that make new media function either.

Unfamiliarity limits perspective.

Moreover, as companies like Google emphasize ease of use… finding quality information takes a back seat. The nature of the web is open and free, but that can be a bad thing. Especially, when you don’t realize what you’re dealing with.

Last October I singled out Gary Nodler (R-Sen.) from Joplin, because he helped to block the use of laptops by Missouri State Senators. At the time I said I wouldn’t vote for him if he ever runs for a statewide office.  Turns out he is. He’s looking to take Roy Blunt’s U.S. Representative seat in southwest Missouri where I grew up.

My, how the tables turn!

This reminds me of why Internet access (and digital libraries) need to be accessible to lawmakers. And, with information becoming ambiently findable, why they need to be able to fact check one another in real time. The Annenburg Public Policy Center seems to understand this. They host FactCheck.org. So does the St. Petersburg Times which produces the Pulitzer Prize winning PolitiFact website. Unfortunately, not all of Missouri’s Senators do. Traditional media can’t move at the speed of assertion.

I may have been too hard on Sen. Nodler, especially after I found this site, but given any viewing of “Countdown with Keith Olberman” or “The O’Riley Factor” it’s obvious that political fact checking has it’s own bizarre standard. Interestingly, the media has become segmented in recent years which has allowed political hacks to justify almost anything.

This is a common problem. The internet, radio, and television are all  littered with falsehoods and half-truths, partially because anyone can slap an something together capable of reaching a wide audience. If properly approached, though, this problem can be resolved.

Basically, my argument is this. Given access to quality, agreed upon information sources, and perhaps a revised legislative process, politicians can improve the quality of discourse as debate occurs. If provided the opportunity to call one another out using evidence (the moment something is wrongly asserted), politicians then could, hopefully, improve their bottom line.

Of course they need to have access to the necessary information first, and they need to agree where to get it. The Daily Kos and the Drudge Report obviously should be ruled out.

With tomorrow’s vote on health-care reform due, it’s become increasingly obvious that Americans get the majority of information from sources that back up what they already believe. I’ve already argued in another post that I believe the internet and ”cheap media”  has made this possible.  Now, as a librarian – a supposed expert in research methodology – I’m willing to go a step farther. I think it has to do with market specific media segmentation.

This morning I took the time to read through a variety of sources concerning Congresses’ effort and the results were telling. Predictably, everything fell into camps that catered to their target demographic’s pre-conceived perceptions. What does this mean for the future of objective research? Is the “media,” if such a group exists anymore, fostering too much democracy?

My point isn’t so much that the media are to blame for Americans not “getting along.” As long as differences in opinion have existed, so have different information sources. Plus, to stay solvent a number of news agencies have had to market to specific audiences. Instead, what I’m arguing is that we are seeing something unique thanks to information being so easy to produce and find.

Newspapers, broadcasters, and other media producers have to segment the market to thrive. Simultaneously, people can find skewed information that backs up their beliefs easier than ever before. The two form a circular process in which the public can look for what they want and the media can produce more of it. They rely on one another. They’re supercharged by the internet and computers. It’s common to talk about clamor in democracy as occurring in a feedback room. I think a completely different feedback process is occurring as we speak.

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.