Whether or not the ever-evolving world of technology is hindering the communal nature of human beings is a popular debate lately. Surveys and studies abound on the topic. My freshman year of college, in my Media and Society class, I worked on a project that dealt with this very issue. An article from Reuters brings another voice to the table in the debate in its piece “Technology doesn’t isolate people: U.S. study.”
The lede is enticing:
Contrary to popular belief, the Internet and mobile phones are not isolating people but enhancing their social worlds, according to a U.S. survey.
However, this is vague. When I think of technology isolating people, I think of the typical argument that people are less able to engage one another because they have less actual contact with each other. This is what I expected to read about when I saw this article’s headline. In the lede, though, I see some pretty vague language: technology is “enhancing their social worlds.” This could mean a lot of different things.
The article’s author, Belinda Goldsmith, says this new survey is in response to an earlier survey that showed
Americans becoming more socially isolated, their social networks shrinking, and the diversity of their contacts decreasing.
She then goes on to cite the Pew Internet and American Life Project survey, which said that Internet and cell phone usage is linked to “more diverse social networks.” What I wanted to know was what that means. Maybe your social networks are more diverse, but are you still sitting alone inside your house with your communication devices?
The Reuters article is quick to agree with what the Pew survey seemed to be saying, quoting
“Cell phone users, those who use the Internet frequently at work, and bloggers are more likely to belong to a local voluntary association, such as a youth group or a charitable organization,” the study found.
However, the same survey also said that social networking sites can be substitutes for involvement in activities that allow people to connect face-to-face.
The article reports that earlier surveys found people are not as close to others now as they used to be and that they confide in fewer people. Yet people still have “more diverse social networks.” While I realize this article is simply reporting on the results of the survey, I would be interested to know what the results actually mean. Reading the article, questions were raised in my mind as to what the Pew researchers actually considered a social network to be.
Also, Goldsmith quoted the researchers in a statement they made. Not only was the quote vague, the reader does not know who these researchers are. A New York Times article on the same survey, however, quoted a university professor who worked on the study. Even though he basically said the same thing that came from the statement, we can at least hear a voice of authority speaking to us.
The Reuters article caught my eye because the topic was something I had studied previously. Because of this, I was less likely to accept what Goldsmith wrote at face value. I wanted to see that she had looked beyond the study. Editors at my internship constantly stress the importance of checking things out for myself. Although I don’t think Goldsmith could have checked the accuracy of an extensive report such as the Pew study, I do think it would’ve been worth it for her to clarify some of the terms for her audience, such as “diverse social networks.” That way, regardless of what the survey results say, the reader will trust what the reporter has written.
Comments