For Two Months, I Got My News From Print Newspapers. Here’s What I Learned.
Because I had avoided the innocent mistakes — and the more malicious misdirection —
that had pervaded the first hours after the shooting, my first experience of the news was an accurate account of the actual events of the day.
That sounds obvious until you try it — and you realize how much of what you get online isn’t quite news, and more like a never-ending stream of commentary, one
that does more to distort your understanding of the world than illuminate it.
And I’m embarrassed about how much free time I have — in two months, I managed to read half a dozen books, took up pottery
and (I think) became a more attentive husband and father.
People don’t just post stories — they post their takes on stories, often quoting key parts of a story to underscore
how it proves them right, so readers are never required to delve into the story to come up with their own view.
For instance, I didn’t see the false claims — possibly amplified by propaganda bots —
that the killer was a leftist, an anarchist, a member of ISIS and perhaps just one of multiple shooters.
It is exactly our fealty to the crowd — to what other people are saying about the
news, rather than the news itself — that makes us susceptible to misinformation.
Not only had I spent less time with the story than if I had followed along as it unfolded online, I was better informed, too.
