Read this, not that: A review of Clay Johnson’s “The Information Diet”
posted at 6:08 pm on March 13, 2012 by Tina Korbe
Clay Johnson knows a thing or two about new media; he’s the founder of Blue State Digital, the firm that built and managed Barack Obama’s online campaign for the presidency in 2008. As Karl Rove reportedly once said, “Blue State Digital! You guys do great things for the wrong people!”
Johnson was also the director of Sunlight Labs at the Sunlight Foundation, an organization that aims to give people greater access to government data. Johnson has experience with software development, politics, entrepreneurism and non-profits. When he writes about new media in his new book “The Information Diet,” then, he knows whereof he writes.
No, Johnson isn’t blind to the many benefits of the technological advances of the past two centuries or to the many benefits of the blogosphere — but he also isn’t blind to the drawbacks of what he calls Big Info.
The premise of “The Information Diet” is simple: Just as technological advances revolutionized the way farmers produced food, so technological advances have revolutionized the way content creators produce information. Today, we’re able to produce more information more cheaply than ever before — but, just as the cheapest food is often the least nutritious, so the cheapest information is also often the least informative. In a nutshell: Affirmation and entertainment are cheaper than facts and figures.
Johnson argues that the tendency to gorge on information that reinforces our biases leads to information obesity, a condition in which we’re simultaneously hyperinformed and yet blissfully unaware of the ironies of our way of thinking. Picture an intelligent, well-informed man bearing a poster that reads, “Get your government hands off my Medicare!” Johnson has actually seen that man. He’s the poster child for information obesity.
The first part of Johnson’s book exposes the realities of profit-driven “churnalism,” a new form of journalism in which traffic potential, revenue potential and turn-around time primarily determine what content an editor covers. At the bottom of the list of considerations is editorial quality. That list of factors specifically comes from an AOL document leaked in early 2011, but plenty of other online information organizations have adopted a similar approach. Johnson doesn’t necessarily condemn what has come to be known as “The AOL Way” — it’s obviously a savvy business model — but he clearly thinks it’s important that information consumers understand that content creators today (or, at the very least, their managers) are driven more by the desire to raise advertising revenue than by any noble desire to tell the truth no matter what the consequences. With that understanding, consumers can begin to filter and interpret the information they receive from those content creators accordingly.
The second part of Johnson’s book offers his prescription to avoid information obesity. It’s as straightforward as the entire book: Consume deliberately. Take in information over affirmation. Two more of his tips: (1) Consume locally. Pay attention to information that is actionable and relevant to you — neighborhood news, local news, state news. (2) Seek a diversity of viewpoints. Challenge yourself with the opposition.
This strikes me as an important book for anyone who is highly plugged into the blogosphere, whether conservative or liberal. We call ourselves “information junkies” or “political junkies” for a reason: We’re addicted to that next hit of affirmation. Realistically, we’re the ones most susceptible to epistemic closure — to the idea that any source that contradicts us can’t be trusted. In fact, I faced that very problem as I read “The Information Diet.” After all, it was authored by a guy who has actively campaigned for politicians I vehemently dislike. When I began to read the book, I wondered: “Why should I trust that he, like me, wants to advance truth? How can I be sure his motive to write the book wasn’t to delegitimize the blogosphere, which has become one of the few far-reaching forums for the dissemination of conservative ideas in this country?”
But, chapter by chapter, Clay Johnson won me over. “The Information Diet” isn’t necessarily a call to eliminate the existence of Big Info (although, if everybody adopted his recommendations, the demand for it would be greatly diminished): As its subtitle makes clear, it’s “a case for conscious consumption.” I’ve written before that new media demands more of consumers than old media: It demands engagement, an active grappling with the facts and with the arguments advanced on both sides. “The Information Diet” is a helpful primer on how to engage the information at our disposal.
But why take it from me? Watch this introduction and go straight to the source. Read the book itself!
Related Posts:









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
No, big surprise here the UN is a den of Thugs and Dictators.
ChunkyLover on December 17, 2012 at 3:25 PM
What? FOI? I saw the pic and thought this would be another pro-second amendment thread.
kim roy on December 17, 2012 at 3:27 PM
UN out of the US…
SWalker on December 17, 2012 at 3:27 PM
It infringes on their tyrannies.
The number one reason why muzzies and Russia want to control the internet is…
Schadenfreude on December 17, 2012 at 3:28 PM
Even more accurate.
Bitter Clinger on December 17, 2012 at 3:33 PM
No surprise here.
What’s the difference between the UN view and the MSM? The idea is to keep people ignorant, control them through emotion, and then declare that they’re stupid because they don’t have enough information to agree with their betters, i.e. the Politburo.
What’s happening here is the same in every communist country or dictatorship. We still have one avenue, and now it’s being attacked.
Cody1991 on December 17, 2012 at 3:36 PM
Move the UN to Venezuela…
PatriotRider on December 17, 2012 at 3:38 PM
Haiti is my choice.
The US needs to pull out of the UN, and kick them out of the country. The important and only solution is to get out of this sick organization and not fund them. It’s our money that keeps this hideous cancer alive.
Cody1991 on December 17, 2012 at 3:41 PM
A successful win on this front, by our U.N. ambassador, might create a resume fit for a career move up the ladder to SoS or even National Security Advisor. So, I guess she won’t be rewarded,..:)
a capella on December 17, 2012 at 3:41 PM
Misinformation is king. And information is in the dungeon. Including in the US. Not to say that it couldn’t be worse.
besser tot als rot on December 17, 2012 at 3:42 PM
But…but Rice is such a intelligent and immensely hard worker who has done wonders for the US in the UN.
Well, I guess when your boss leads from behind…kinda wears off.
plutorocks on December 17, 2012 at 3:49 PM
Interesting how the President’s speech last night was preceeded by non-stop hyping of the coming event…
Seven Percent Solution on December 17, 2012 at 3:53 PM
Because the American budget surplus is so big that there’s a need for things to spend the unwanted money on, even if counter-productively?
David Blue on December 17, 2012 at 3:53 PM
Yeah, having Susan Rice at the UN is as comforting as having Eric “Fast and Furious Gun Runner” Holder as USAG.
Isn’t it great to have corrupt, America hating leftists in charge of our lives?
Cody1991 on December 17, 2012 at 3:59 PM
Time to stop funding this beast. That would be beneficial in multiple ways.
AZfederalist on December 17, 2012 at 4:03 PM
Obama will speak up for freedom in 5,4,3,2 never.
birdwatcher on December 17, 2012 at 4:07 PM
Obama’s silence means he agrees.
Hillary deos too.
Schadenfreude on December 17, 2012 at 4:13 PM
Individual liberty……..equals the number of guns in the hands of citizens.
I haven’t noticed ANY PROGRESSIVE talking about ARMED SECURITY…….because…..
……Would be tyrants want our guns!!
And this nation is how far from loading people into trucks/trains for RE-education?
PappyD61 on December 17, 2012 at 4:16 PM
The three cesspits of China, M.E. and Africa don’t want information to get in. Russia doesn’t want it to get out.
Why?
OldEnglish on December 17, 2012 at 4:18 PM
Don’t they mean that it’s the Internet users in closed countries that will suffer?
Either that or WSJ has a funny definition of ‘suffer’.
Socratease on December 17, 2012 at 4:57 PM
Kill the UN before it kills civilization.
Only a total retard would think that an empowered, peerless, competitionless entity ought to even exist.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 17, 2012 at 5:36 PM
…yep!…The United States and it’s MSM are charter members!
KOOLAID2 on December 17, 2012 at 11:34 PM