In Nicholas Carr’s article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” he makes a valid point about how people skim web pages instead of reading them, but I do not believe that internet takes away our ability to read books. Carr writes that most people do not read closely on the internet, and since they tend to jump around from page to page, people’s attention spans are shorter. This, I can accept. However, Carr goes so far as to say that our experience reading on the internet makes it impossible for us to focus on longer texts. This, I believe, is untrue. In my experience, I have found that I do not read pages on the computer as thoroughly as those in print, however this has had no impact whatsoever on the way I read books. Carr makes a huge mistake by lumping both kinds of media together. It is like saying that since the television was invented, people no longer listen closely to the radio.
By printing out documents from the internet, I find it easier to concentrate on them. While this is not practical for all internet reading, I do not find the reading I do on the screen to be so changed as to affect my comprehension of the document.
Carr’s condemnation of the internet seems nearsighted. Naturally, if one is lazy when using the internet, the information one finds could be false. Most people know not to believe everything they read on Wikipedia, so they should treat the rest of the internet the same way. Always verify your source. What Carr barely acknowledges is that the internet’s advantages are greater than its drawbacks. Now, almost anyone can access information quickly and relatively easily. Communication is almost instant with email and instant messaging. As long as you use the internet wisely, it can be an incredible tool.
A few months ago, I read a similar article in Newsweek. Sharon Begley, the author of that article, also addressed the way internet may be changing the way we think. Though her article took a more moderate approach to the subject, it was much more convincing – on both sides. Also, she said what she needed to say in only one page. It took Carr several pages to present a less believable argument. It seemed like Carr was too caught up with his sources to actually write a good article. In fact, Carr’s examples of dissenting arguments were more believable than his own argument. Carr could learn from Begley’s more concise approach, especially if our attention spans really are getting shorter.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/07/your-brain-online.html
Laura, this is a very interesting post. You do a lot of things I admire. First, as always, you write incredibly well. I find your prose to be very inviting, easy to enjoy. I appreciate your opposition to the article. One of my personal objectives of the course is to make students aware of the biases of the media, and of course, Carr is very much part of the media. In addition, I love the use of the Newsweek article. This article, which includes a lot of textual evidence, is concise and it does a nice job refuting the internet naysayers. My biggest concern, really, is that I don’t think your case against Carr is convincing. I don’t disagree with your opinion, but I don’t think you really tackle the article enough for me to be convinced by your opposition. I do understand it is difficult to develop a case in 400 words. Carr does only address one side of the debate, but which specific evidence do you find the least effective? What parts of the article do you oppose the most?
ReplyDelete