In Vanity Fair’s August edition, Michael Wolff makes the case that Politico.com represents the way we’re going with regards to information distribution:
“obsessives everywhere in their particular narrow-focused areas of interest (’silos’ is the modern information term), flashing ever more information, ever quicker, in ever shorter bites—the shorter you can make it, the more information there can be—to all the ships at sea.”
Is he right?
Are we focusing on that which interests us the most to the exclusion of things we deem less important? Has the Internet’s ability to drill down to the tiniest of details in specific areas made us oblivious to the larger world around us?
I love information. I love the idea of knowing more tomorrow than I know today. However, I can’t claim to love all information equally. I suspect few people can claim otherwise.
Prior to the Internet and other digital technology, we often had to wade through filters (e.g., newspapers, card catalogs, etc.) to get to the source. In the wading process, we invariably brushed up against “stuff” that didn’t contribute to the main search, but had the potential to enlighten us along the way.
If information becomes silo-based will we lose opportunities to brush up against possibilities? Yes, search engines bring up a dizzying array of possibilities, but how many pages do you generally click through? 2, 3, or 4? How many times have you clicked through them all?
Will we give in to the temptation to retreat to our silos and wallow in the information that brings us the most pleasure, but perhaps blinds us to the everyday?
It’s our choice. We choose what to look at, what to read, and what to pursue. Does your silo still have a working door?
