The downside of customized media

David Hepworth's column in the August issue of The WORD magazineOne of my favorite magazines is The WORD, a music-centric but eclectic publication from Britain that leaves me invigorated. 

The WORD delivers wonderful surprises each month, among them this lament from founding partner David Hepworth's column in the August issue that suggests technology makes it too easy to put blinders on our media consumption:

"If you turn on the radio, they promise to perfectly mirror your tastes. Who wants that? Patrick Crowther was speaking for many when he posted this on the WORD website:  'Despite its obvious faults, old-school Radio 1 was instrumental in developing my love of music and my interest in different kinds of music. I might not have liked Lena Martell, but being exposed to music that wasn't specifically targeted at me was, in hindsight, a good thing. It broadened my horizons.'

"It didn't just make people keener on what they loved. It also made them more forgiving of what they didn't. The WORD Massive [the magazine's online community] is very tolerant but even I sometimes feel like taking issue with people who don't understand why a particular feature is in the magazine. Isn't part of being a mature individual showing that you can live with and even be interested in things that weren't designed with your approval in mind? I've spent months reading about people I'm not interested in. That's how you get interested. The narrowing is no way to go and that's where we're increasingly being led. 

 "With its personalisation devices, narrowcast channels and sophisticated content filters, contemporary media and technology is doing everything in its power to ensure we never have to go near anything we are not personally enthusiastic about. That way lies what? Better targeting? A station that plays nothing but Fleet Foxes or Tinie Tempah? One thing's for sure, it isn't happiness."

I'll argue that the freedom to choose your own content streams more than ever before is a great thing. Too much choice is much preferred to just three TV networks, a few news stations and a newspaper or two. 

But I totally agree that in this sea of 24-7 media, too many people are losing sight of the important things occurring around them, those things that don't necessarily interest them but which they should work to understand.

We've lost some inquisitiveness over the past decade as these new content streams made it easy to sit back and absorb what we think fits our perception of the real deal. But more content means each of us need to be better editors and use our spidey-sense to question things that seem squishy. Just because some talking head said something doesn't mean it's true. The first 10 minutes of each episode of "The Daily Show" confirms that Washington is riddled with goofballs in both main parties. 

I work hard to keep my eyes open by reading a variety of newspapers, magazines, books and websites, as well as watching or listening to news and cultural programs on TV, various forms of radio or podcasts, and tons of music of all kinds. I subscribe to three British magazines even though some things fly over my head (including the Tinie Tempah reference above) because they give me foreign insights into a world that's still new in so many ways.

Part of that media appetite is because of my job, but I'd make the effort if I were picking up aluminum cans for a living. Sadly, too many people like to stay in their comfort zones. It makes life easier, I suppose, to wear those blinders. But as Hepworth suggests, those blinders seem to foster anger and ignorance, rather than happiness. 

Let's see: close-minded, bitter and angry or open-minded, invigorated and probably happier? The choice is in your hands.