The evolution of Traditional to New Media

A respected Swiss scientist, Conrad Gessner, may be the first to raise the alarm about the effects of overloading information. In a reference book, he describes how people in the modern world are coming to the data and that this extra power is "confusing and harmful" in mind. The media today echo their concerns with reports of unmatched risk of living in a digital environment "always on". It is notable that Gessner, for his part, never uses e-mail and knows nothing about computers. It was not because he was technophobe, but since he died in 1565. His warnings refer to the avalanche of seemingly unreliable information launched by press printing.

 

Concerns about superfluous information are as much information as they are, and each generation explains the harmful effects of the mind and brain technology. From a historical point of view, what impact on home is not the evolution of social concerns, but their similarity from one century to another, to the point where they came back with less change than the label.

 

These concerns will return to the birth of literacy. In parallel with modern concerns about the excessive use of children's technology, Socrates warns that it should not be written because "will create oblivion among the souls of the students, because they will not use their memories." He also warns that children can not recognize fantasy from the truth, so parents should only allow them to hear healthy allegory and not "improper" stories, so that their development is not lost. The repeated warnings of Socratic are repeated because: The previous generation warned against a new technology and regrets that society abandons the "healthy" media in which it grew, apparently not knowing that the same technology it is considered dangerous to introduce it for the first time

 

by Gessner anxieties by psychological tension emerged when he undertook the work of compiling an index of each book available in the XVI century, finally published as Bibliotheca universalis. Similar concerns emerged in the eighteenth century, when newspapers became more common. The French statesman Malesherbes fashion criticized for news from printed pages, arguing to be isolated socially readers and downplayed the spiritual uplifting practice group to get news from the pulpit. After one hundred years, literacy is very important and schools are widely introduced, curmudgeons have been against education because of being unnatural and a mental health hazard. An 1883 article on weekly medical journals sanitary warns that schools "consume the brain and nervous systems of children with complex and multiple studies, and cause their bodies to calamitate for a long time imprisonment. " In the meantime, excessive study is considered to be a leading cause of insanity on the part of the medical community.

When it came to radio, we discovered another spell was more than young: wireless was accused of distracting children from reading and dropping school performance, which is now considered to be appropriate and healthy. In 1936 the gramophone music magazine reported that children have "developed the habit of dividing the attention between homogeneous preparations of homework and the thrilling thrill of the speaker" and described how the radio programs are disturbing the balance of their minds credible. television also caused great concern: media historian Ellen Wartella pointed out how "opponents expressed concern about how television can harm radio, conversation, reading and family life patterns and lead to greater popularity of American culture. "

 

In the late twentieth century, personal computers entered our homes, the Internet was a global phenomenon and almost identical concerns were widely disseminated by scary headlines: CNN reported that "email is more harmful to the IQ's boat" The Telegraph said. "Twitter and Facebook can harm moral values" and "Facebook and MySpace generation" can not build relationships, "and Daily Mail published an article on" How to Use Facebook may Increase your risk of cancer. "There's no shred of The evidence is based on these stories, but they appear in news headlines around the world because they hold our fears of fear about new technologies.

 

These fears also appeared in special articles for the more serious newspaper: Nicolas Carr's influential article "Do we make Google foolish?" for the Atlantic he suggested that the Internet was undermining our attention and slowing our argument; The Times of London article "Warning: brain overload" says digital technology is harmful to our ability to achieve; and a piece in the New York Times entitled "The Lure of Data: Is It Addictive?" the question raised was whether the technology could cause a lack of attention. All the pieces have something

in common: they do not mention any studies on how digital technology affects the mind and the brain. They tell anecdotes about people who think they can not think, talk to scientists doing the work around, and that's it. Imagine if the situation in Afghanistan is discussed in a similar way. You can write 4,000 words for an important media that does not mention the relevant truth about war. Instead, you will base your essay on the opinions of your friends and the person working in the kebab shop. He's really from Turkey, but it's the same, though, right?

 

In fact, many researches directly address these problems. To date, studies suggest that there is no consistent evidence that the Internet causes disease problems. In any case, the data show that people who use social networking sites tend to have a better social life offline, while those who play computer games are better than non-players to absorb and react to information without losing precision or increasing impulsivity. In contrast, the accumulation of many years of evidence suggests that heavy TV viewing seems to have a negative impact on our health and our ability to focus. Almost never hear about studies because television is old, technological fears must be innovative and evidence that something safe is not the best in the media agenda.

 

The writer Douglas Adams watched the technology that existed when we were born seems normal, everything that develops before age 35 is exciting, and everything is then treated with suspicion. This does not mean that all media technologies are harmless, and there is little debate about how new developments affect our bodies and minds. But history is shown to rarely consider the effects in more than the superficial terms because of our suspicions beyond us. In retrospect, debates about whether studies dulls the brain or seasonal injuries the fabric of society seems strange, but our children are undoubtedly feeling the same way as technology scares our entretenimos today. It will not be long until the cycle starts again.