SUBSCRIBER LOGIN

Search
First Things

Loading
« Previous  |Home|  Next »         

Friday, January 14, 2011, 3:48 PM

I can remember when internet content presented itself to me as an unexpected bounty of thoughtful essays, articles, and shorter form stuff. There was a time when I read every single post at National Review’s The Corner (a blog started early in the last decade) and regularly checked in on the Instapundit. But it is possible to get too much of anything. And that is what has happened to me with internet media.

As I sit staring at a monitor and clicking away, I can feel time slipping away and my attention becoming less and less focused as I browse, browse, browse hopping quickly from place to place with one part of my conscious mind trying to generate ideas for the next skip.

Confronted with this sense of things more frequently, lately, I found myself suddenly vulnerable to an offer from Time which I would normally throw away. A year’s worth of Time (weekly!) for about $20. My typical reaction would be, “Great! The doctor’s office can have it.” But not on this occasion. Instead, I thought about how nice might it be to have one magazine broadly covering the news. I can easily take it to bed (or to the bathroom . . .), read through the articles, and feel like a reasonably informed person. It helped that I’d recently been on a radio show where the host stumped me by asking a question about the START treaty. My clicking had deftly avoided it. If I were to read Time, cover to cover, a small embarrassment of the sort would be less likely to happen.

So, now, I am two issues into the subscription. I don’t get up-to-the-second information, but I do get a publication of manageable size (rather than the near infinity of the net) and the coverage is comprehensive enough.

As far as one of the reasons I’d stopped reading magazines like Time, such as my perception of harsh media bias, I can report I have read little to put me on the defensive or to feel as though my point of view is being treated unfairly. Indeed, the only thing objectionable about these two issues has been an ad on the rear cover for the atheist version of The 700 Club, which is also known as Real Time with Bill Maher. There may be a reason Time has survived the black hole of failure that took hold of Newsweek.

To this point, I have to say the experiment is a success. If you are suffering with the sensation your soul is being sucked slowly into the machine, I recommend you give it a try.

7 Comments

    Judy K. Warner
    January 14th, 2011 | 6:22 pm

    Bias doesn’t always come in overt forms. I hope you’re still checking a couple of websites once in a while to see what Time is leaving out.

    Hunter Baker
    January 15th, 2011 | 7:43 pm

    Oh, definitely still reading the web, Judy!

    The Other Steve
    January 16th, 2011 | 1:56 pm

    Daniel Boorstin argued a variation of this case in 1982 (in Reader’s Digest, of all places). See his article, “Homo-up-to-Datum Is a Dunce.”

    Boorstin’s “experiment” aimed at an even more focused reading regimen than yours, Hunter. (And, needless to say, that was long before the advent of blogs!)

    (another) Matt
    January 16th, 2011 | 3:57 pm

    I would recommend one of Time‘s competitors, The Week. It too, is manageable in size and broad in focus.

    I prefer it because they aggregate (and shorten) articles from various other news sources from around the world, and across the ideological spectrum, so that one has access to the work of hundreds of experts rather than a handful of generalists.

    An old wag once said that, just as cigarettes provided people with something to do with their hands when they weren’t working, Time magazine provides people with something to do with their minds when they aren’t thinking. While that might be a little bit unfair, I do notice that reading it never seems to be accompanied by any thrills of discovery or wonder at new facts or well-turned phrases.

    Hunter Baker
    January 16th, 2011 | 4:59 pm

    I don’t read Time to make me think the way I read (shameless plug) First Things or Touchstone. I read it to be broadly informed. It achieves that quite well. But you aren’t the first person to recommend The Week to me. I’m intrigued.

    Andrew B.
    January 17th, 2011 | 7:20 pm

    Shameless Elitist: Why read Time when there’s The Economist?

    Hunter Baker
    January 17th, 2011 | 7:32 pm

    I’ve tried that. The Economist is more than I can cover in the time allotted and I end up feeling that I’m not living it to the task of taking it all in.

=