Read more, learn less

Friday evening was a night to remember. Not only did Lori and I get a chance to renew our friendship with two of the nicest people on the planet -- Deb and Bob, at right -- but all four of us attended a reading at Powell's Books featuring Tom Rachman. I've already posted two items on Rachman and his outstanding debut novel, "The Imperfectionists," so I won't go there again.

I will, however, pick up on a comment that Rachman made during the Q&A that followed his reading. Someone asked him what do newspapers need to do to survive? No surprise that the question came up because his novel, after all, is based on archetypal characters in the newsroom of an English-language international daily that's clinging stubbornly to print in a digital world. And there was no dispute from my view in terms of what he replied -- that there is no one way to resolve the problem that newspapers face.

It's inevitable that the newspapers will continue to decline, he said, because of the dual threats from technology (more people want their news now and free) and declining advertising (advertisers can find other venues that are less costly and deliver a niche audience). If newspapers had decided from the outset to charge for their online content, perhaps things might be entirely different. But that's not an option at this point.

Rachman, a former journalist himself, said he picks up the local paper in each city on his book tour,  and "I can't help but notice that I feel much less -- or more narrowly -- informed." Without trained professional editors who select the most interesting, most relevant stories, readers are less apt to be surprised by something valuable and informative that they wouldn't find on their own, he said.

"Now you're more likely to know more about what you already know," Rachman said. "You're not going to be directed to things of value."

Precisely.

And to underscore his point, today's Oregonian had an op-ed by Stephen Randall, in which he argues that we're living in a time when it's important to have opinions. "Not necessarily smart or original ones; almost any opinion will do as long as it's forcefully expressed. When it comes to opinions, we're all living in an intellectual Costco, where it's volume, volume, volume."

The Internet is a Petri dish of opinion inflation, breeding commentary like bacteria. Because few people do anything interesting or have anything factual to report, they toss off a short opinion. That, in turn, leads to opinion hyperinflation; just looks at the comments sections on any blog.

"There was a time when thoughtful people tried to be balanced," Randall writes. "The old-style political columnists were famous for saying nothing. They presented both sides of any given issue...pretty much allowing readers to form their own opinions..."

Now? We have Keith and Glenn and Arianna and Sean. We rate restaurants, then tweet about them. We criticize music, films and TV. We vote for dancers, singers and comedians. We critique what people wear. And we sometimes, maybe even often, do this when we are angry or just plain loud.

Yes, journalism is a lot flatter now, just like the world economy, as a result of Web 2.0 technology. While I applaud many of the changes it has brought, I also share Rachman's thoughtful critique of how reading habits have changed and I cringe at the overly opinionated people we have become.