Sometimes it’s important to step back and ask yourself: “Why are we here?” Not in the cosmic sense, of course. What I mean is, why am I writing for a newspaper, and why are you reading one?
The standard answer might be something along the lines of “I’m writing for a newspaper because I want to transmit information, and you’re reading a newspaper because you want to receive it.” But without using the word “information,” what does this actually mean?
Suppose that you, like most people, don’t believe that Godzilla is real. In other words, you don’t expect to observe any signs of Godzilla’s existence. You don’t expect to see giant reptilian footprints or hear his distinctive roar, and you certainly don’t expect to meet him face to face. As a result, you don’t expect that you’ll have to prepare for any upcoming Godzilla attacks.
One day, you open the newspaper and read an article that says Godzilla is heading across the Pacific Ocean and straight for the Lower Mainland. After double-checking that this isn’t April Fools’ Day, reading this article changes your expectations. You might even start preparing yourself for a Godzilla attack, or, if you’re still skeptical, you might take that newspaper less seriously from that point onward. Either way, the article somehow causes a change in your behaviour.
“Change” is the operative word here. It’s the essence of information; if it’s useful, it should cause a change in your expectations and behaviour. At its most basic level, the purpose of reading a newspaper article is to improve your set of beliefs about the world, and that means that you have to be prepared to change your mind. Not every change is an improvement, but every improvement is necessarily a change.
This sounds obvious, but too often, we fail to appropriately change our beliefs upon learning new information. Changing your mind means admitting that you were wrong about something, and people will go great distances to avoid admitting an error. In the age of the Internet, chances are you can find a news source that caters to your particular biases, which gives nothing that will surprise you or force you to change your mind. This is a sure-fire recipe for leaving news audiences comfortable, complacent, and ignorant.
I’m sure some readers share the following experience with me: when I use Facebook, I sometimes find that my friends have posted links to opinions articles supporting a cause I know that they already agree with. Sometimes, I agree with the article too — and that’s the problem. When you read an article by someone who agrees with you, and share it with people who already agree with you, who actually benefits?
If you read something without changing your mind, or write something intended for people who already agree with you, you’ve wasted your time. All you’ve done is engage in a complex form of mental masturbation.
So, I return to my original question: Why are we here? I’m here out of the hope that my column causes someone else to notice this “preaching-to-the-choir” style of journalism and call it out for what it is. As to why you’re here, that’s a question you have to answer for yourself.
