Dhillion 1

Justin Dhillion

Mr. Jason King

AP Seminar

6 December 2017

Word Count: 1517

Is Technological Information Really Helping Us?

The progressive use of technology has done wonders for the human race, but could it be

making the world worse at the same time? It is widely agreed that the progressive transition from

paper to technology has extraordinarily impacted the world. However, not much thought is

allotted to the potential negative implications. The average person spends eight and a half hours

on technology (Tsukayama), and much of this time is used surfing the internet, social media, or

news sites for information. Countless studies have revealed that the use of technology as a source

of information rather than the use of physical paper has many negative effects, especially on the

economy and the human mind.

Social media is growing faster than ever, with 40% of the global population having a

social media profile (Williams). In other words, about three billion users have the ability to post

anything they desire, which raises the question: is the information that it provides always going

to be credible? In a stimulus source, it is discussed how the abundance of information will

"create forgetfulness in the learners”, or "exhaust the children's brains and nervous systems with

complex and multiple studies”, a close relation to current day social media in the sense that a

flood of information that lack reliable accuracy could achieve both of these outcomes (Bell). In a
 Dhillion 2

scholarly journal authored by Dr. Mohammad-Ali Abbasi, an author with a Ph.D. in philosophy

and computer science, and Dr. Huan Liu, another author with a Ph.D. in computer science, they

discuss the credibility of social media, stating “Social media provides first-hand data, but one

pressing problem is to distinguish true information from misinformation and rumors. In many

cases, social media data is user generated and can be biased, inaccurate, and subjective.

Furthermore, some people use social media to spread rumor and misinformation” (Abbasi et al.).

Another scholarly journal, written by Dr. Ayoung Suh, who has a Ph.D. in management

information systems, and Dr. Ruohan Li, who has a Ph.D. in philosophy, goes in depth in

analyzing the factors influencing information credibility on social media platforms, specifically

Facebook. To do this, the authors used the survey question, “Did you use Facebook as a tool to

gain information during the Umbrella Movement?”, to conduct their research. They found 135

individuals to test the hypotheses. “Among the 135 respondents, 72 (53.3%) were male and 63

(46.66%) were female. They were generally young, less than 30 years old” (Li et al.). These

individuals were further categorized by education level for additional testing, stating, “Most of

respondents were well educated (77.03%)​,​ they have a university degree.” With all of these

statistics, Li and Suh still found it difficult to assess the credibility of the information of the

Umbrella Movement on Facebook. The authors state that “ Overall, this study is a response to the

call for more in depth research on information credibility on social media platforms and it holds

implication for the academic world…” With social media being one of the biggest information

providers, it will always be hard to establish credibility, especially when the number of social

media users begins to grow. A possible solution could be to decrease the accessibility of user to

help better establish credibility.

 Dhillion 3

Many schools are integrating technology as a new way of learning, but this may not be a

smart move to increase retention of information. Dr. Tom Chatfield, who has a doctorate in

literature and philosophy, wrote an article about why reading and writing on paper rather than

technology can be better for ​your ​brain. He analyzes an experiment that compared the

effectiveness of students taking longhand notes versus typing on laptops, saying, “Their

conclusion: the relative slowness of writing by hand demands heavier ‘mental lifting’, forcing

students to summarise rather than to quote verbatim – in turn tending to increase conceptual

understanding, application and retention” (Chatfield).

Author Caroline Myrberg, a librarian at Karolinska Institutet University Library, wrote a

scholarly article about e-books, specifically the reasons why they are not prefered over paper.

Myrberg addresses the importance of highlighting and annotating being one of the deciding

factors in choosing paper over e-books by saying, “Students need to actively engage with their

texts in order to learn and retain information, and they often use highlighting and annotation to

do so”. ​In​ a study from 2015 addressed ​in ​the article, a majority of Portuguese university

students disagreed with the statement, “I usually highlight and annotate my electronic readings”,

while they agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “I usually highlight and notate my

printed course readings” (Myrberg). The reasoning behind this is the fact that highlighting and

annotating are not as accessible when reading digitally. Therefore, the article supports the fact

that highlighting and annotation are crucial in retaining information. This relates highly to Dr.

Chatfield’s ​article previous article​ in saying that hand movement motivates better retention of

information.
 Dhillion 4

Author Caroline Myrberg also wrote a different scholarly article along with Ninna

Wiberg, who is also a librarian at Karolinska Institutet University Library, about the difference

between paper and technology in terms of learning. A study was included in their article that was

undertaken in 2013 with tenth-graders in Norway, where the students were divided into two

groups (Myrberg et al.). “One group read two texts (1,400–2,000 words) in print and the other

group read the same texts as PDFs on a computer screen. In the reading comprehension test that

was administered, the students who read on paper scored significantly better than those who read

the texts digitally” (Myrberg et al.). The authors say that “...this is because paper gives

spatio-temporal markers while you read” and that “Touching paper and turning pages aids the

memory, making it easier to remember where you read something” (Myrberg et al.). This highly

relates to the previous article by Myrberg and Wiberg by stating how the physical contact with

the paper conveys better retention of information. Some might say that using technological

devices can help you get your information quicker and more efficiently, but if the information is

not well retained, then there is no point in acquiring it at all in the first place. Therefore, the

global society should refrain from major integration of technology in education due to its

inability to retain information as well as paper. This is also why the use of newspapers is so

crucial, in spite of the industry at one of its lowest points.

Unlike the past, most people get theirs news from the internet or television channels

rather than newspapers, leaving a lot of concern for the newspaper industry. With the change

from paper to technology, newspaper companies are going out of business, which can be not

only detrimental to the mind (as previously stated) but the economy as well. In a second stimulus

source, it is addressed that despite subscription surges for largest U.S. newspapers, circulation
 Dhillion 5

and revenue fall for the newspaper industry overall (Barthel). This stimulus source exclaims the

decrease of revenue in newspaper companies due to their increase in digital subscriptions rather

than print subscriptions, stating, “The New York Times added more than 500,000 digital

subscriptions in 2016 – a 47% year-over-year rise. The Wall Street Journal added more than

150,000 digital subscriptions, a 23% rise, according to audited statements produced by Dow

Jones. And the Chicago Tribune added about 100,000 in weekday digital circulation...” (Barthel).

Barthen then counters the potential argument by saying that “...data from AAM shows that total

weekday circulation for U.S. daily newspapers – both print and digital – fell 8% in 2016,

marking the 28th consecutive year of declines” and that the “Total weekday circulation for U.S.

daily newspapers fell to 35 million, while total Sunday circulation declined to 38 million – the

lowest levels since 1945” (Barthel).

In a United States Department of Justice document written by Christine A. Varney, the

assistant attorney general, it is written the effects of the loss of revenue in the newspaper

industry. According to Varney, people are progressively switching from paid subscriptions to

newspapers to free online sources instead, making the newspaper companies lose revenue

quickly. Along with the lack of revenue comes budget cuts, which leads to reporters being laid

off and an overall low budget to produce quality news (Varney). Varney also states that “...this

has led some commentators to worry that these developments will lead to a deleterious reduction

in the production of the high-quality journalism so important to our civic life” (Varney).

Danny Crichton, Ben Christel, Aaditya Shidham, Alex Valderrama, and Jeremy Karmel,

all students who attended Stanford University, wrote a document expressing how detrimental the

use of technology really is on the newspaper industry economically. They explain this by saying,
 Dhillion 6

“The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal all fired hundreds of

journalists and staffers in 2009 in an effort to reduce costs. Even these efforts have not been

enough to restore healthy profits, The New York Times reported a 26% drop in year-to-date

profits in the fourth quarter of 2010”. Not only does the transition from newspaper to news site

affect the company, but the lives of the people who work for them as well. Some might say that

the switch to technology over paper is saving the environment such as Tom Zeller Jr., an awards

winning writer for the New York Times. Zeller says, “In the Swedish market alone, reading the

news online for 10 minutes, or even for 30 minutes, or using the tablet reader, resulted in lower

CO2 emissions than reading a physical newspaper” (Zeller) In this instance, however, Zeller

does not discuss the economic effects of “reading news online for 10 mins” versus reading it on a

newspaper. Although the paper industry does negatively impact the environment, the global

society​ care does not care as much ​about the environment as it does the workers that build up our

economy. Therefore, for the sake of the economy, the increased use of newspapers is the best

solution to the decline in revenue and high quality journalism.

Technological information may seem innocent, but ​once ​of the negative effects are

revealed, it is obvious how damaging they are to the global society. The switch from paper to

technology as a source of information may not have been as effective as many think. Instead,

society should consider returning to paper and incorporating it back into education and the news

industry, as well as decreasing accessibility on social media to establish credibility. All of these

implications may help the global society achieve a healthier lifestyle.

 Dhillion 7

Work Cited

Abbasi, Mohammad-Ali, and Huan Liu. “Measuring User Credibility in Social Media.”

Citeseerx, Arizona State University, 2 Apr. 2013,

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.448.6408&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

Barthel, Michael. “Despite Subscription Surges for Largest U.S. Newspapers, Circulation and

Revenue Fall for Industry Overall.” Pew Research, Pew Research Center, 1 June 2017,

www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/01/circulation-and-revenue-fall-for-newspaper-

ndustry/​.

Bell, Vaughan. “A History of Media Technology Scares, from the Printing Press to Facebook.”

Slate, Slate Magazine, 15 Feb. 2010,

www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2010/02/dont_touch_that_dial.html​.

Chatfield, Tom. “Why Reading and Writing on Paper Can Be Better for Your Brain.” The

Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 23 Feb. 2015,

www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/feb/23/reading-writing-on-paper-better-for-brain

-concentration​.

Crichton, Danny, et al. “Economics of Journalism.” Journalism in the Digital Age, Stanford

University, 13 Nov. 2017

cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2010-11/Journalism/indexcdf1.html?page

_id=10.
 Dhillion 8

Zeller, Tom. “Skip the Newspaper, Save the Planet?” The New York Times, The New York

Times, 19 Apr. 2009,

www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/technology/20green.html?module=ArrowsNav&contentC

ollection=Technology&action=keypress®ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=article​.

Li, Ruohan, and Ayoung Suh. “Factors Influencing Information Credibility on Social Media

Platforms: Evidence from Facebook Pages.” Procedia Computer Science, Elsevier, 23

Dec. 2015, ​www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050915036078​.

Myrberg, Caroline, and Ninna Wiberg. “Screen vs. Paper: What Is the Difference for Reading

and Learning?” Insights, UKSG in Association with Ubiquity Press, 7 July 2015,

insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.236/.

Myrberg, Caroline. “Why Doesn't Everyone Love Reading e-Books?” Insights, UKSG in

Association with Ubiquity Press, 8 Nov. 2017,

insights.uksg.org/articles/10.1629/uksg.386/.

Tsukayama, Hayley. “Teens Spend Nearly Nine Hours Every Day Consuming Media.” The

Washington Post, WP Company, 3 Nov. 2015,

www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/11/03/teens-spend-nearly-nine-hour

s-every-day-consuming-media/?utm_term=.8939d79d58fe​.
 Dhillion 9

Varney, Christine A. “Dynamic Competition In The Newspaper Industry.” The United States

Department of Justice, The United States Department of Justice, 21 Mar. 2011,

www.justice.gov/atr/speech/dynamic-competition-newspaper-industry​.

Williams, Brett. “There Are Now over 3 Billion Social Media Users in the World - about 40

Percent of the Global Population.” Mashable, Mashable, 7 Aug. 2017,

mashable.com/2017/08/07/3-billion-global-social-media-users/#fO_9ONAw5aqS.