Data Smog: Surviving the Information Glut Revised and Updated Edition

I read this book as a requirement for a master's degree course. Although the information presented is very compelling, it is somewhat outdated.Written in 1997, many of the topics that author David Shenk describes in the future tense have already occured. For example, he goes into great detain about the Y2K computer problem and the effect it could have on people's computers. We all know that this turned out to be no problem at all. Further, he mentions the need for a national no-call list for telemarketers. Again, this has already happened since this book was published. I feel that it is time for a new edition to be published with more up-to-date information.I do feel that the idea of "data smog" the overabundance of information that is overwhelming people today, is covered very well. I found the thirteen laws of data smog very interesting, and the antidotes to combat these laws were informative and helpful.Overall, this book rates slightly above average, due to it being 8 years old, and many of the topics discussed have already taken place. If the author were to write an updated edition, then I would rate it higher. However, there are some good points that will make the reader think about the amout of information being placed for consumption and what we as consumers must do to filter out the smog so we can make good and informed choices.

excellent foresight into the issues with high tech culture and how tech itself shapes interactions in some unsavory ways. impressed that this was written in 1998.

Are we drowning in a sea of information? Blinded by a smog of data? That's Shenk's premise, and I have to admit I'm in somewhat of an agreement with him. It's either agree with him, or admit that I'm getting old and can't keep up anymore. We are of an age, however--he relates how his first computer was a Macintosh in 1984. He talks about becoming involved in the early days of digital communication (back then, there was Compu$erve, the $ource, and local BBSes). He went on the reporting route, while I took the technology route. Now we both feel surrounded by too much stuff, data being the prime component. Shenk blames it on the new medium, whereas I think that maybe it is the nature of our general society.Don't get me wrong. I love data. Databases are your friend, and they've certainly been mine, as I make my living off maintaining them, writing interfaces for them, and creating reports from them. The problem seems to go back to something much older than the Internet, but to the early days of computing. There is a term, not in much use today, called GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out. Too much data being stored in databases these days was dumped there, without editing, without sorting, without review. Just because modern tools allow you access to data in these storage areas better, faster, and cheaper, does not mean that data poorly stored has any more value. I am sure many of you have run into a case where the computer was supposed to help you with a task, but instead it just seems that you were able to process more data, not necessarily do the job quicker or easier. More data, as Shenk discusses, is not a solution. Better data would be, but no one is providing quality.And this is where I say the problem is not the technology but the society. Americans have a hard time with quality. We give it lip service, but what we really want is quantity. The tagline for Godzilla, "Size matters," was perfect for us. Yes, we want more. We want a biggie fries and a biggie shake. We want to Super Size that Extra Value Meal. We purchase Range Rovers and the only range we rove is the median when there's a traffic jam. Let's go to CostCo and get the five-pound jar of spaghetti sauce, even though we only eat spaghetti at home once every two months. We'll take 52 channels of crap on the cable, although only four are worth watching. Bigger, we imply, is always better. Our hardware store here has a tagline that says they have "more of everything."Shenk says, more is less. You are a limited creature; you can only handle a limited amount of input. Why not get some quality input for a change? I like the idea, and I have to admit that Jill and I were already working towards this goal before our move. Jill calls it "divesting ourselves of the material culture," but mainly it's just getting rid of stuff. Why did we have 700 CDs? We couldn't listen to them all, and hadn't listened to more than 5% in the last year. Why did we have 2000 books--did we intend to reference or reread all of them? I have been keeping bank and billing records for the last 15 years? Why? We cleaned out the closet, evaluating the things we really needed to meet our goals. And it isn't that much. Why did we have all that stuff. Because we were being good little members of the consumer society.This simplification of the life style is one of Shenk's answers to Data Smog. The others include being your own filter (limit your inputs--cut off the TV, unsubscribe from those lists [well, except from mine]), being your own editor (take your time to understand what you read and hear, don't settle for sound bites), become a generalist (Robert Heinlein said, "Specialization is for insects."), and, lastly, take part in government rather than forsaking it. These antidotes are strong medicine towards regaining control of your life. Shenk probably didn't mean this as a self-help book, but if the tool pouch fits....

I am disappointed that I end up rating David Shenk's book so low because there are some very interesting ideas at work here. His rejection of technology as a panacea for all of humanity's problems is very accurate. Also his distinction between mere information and real knowledge is something that all people should wrestle with. And his analysis that public figures and interest groups rely increasingly on overheated rhetoric rings true to anyone who watched Jesse Jackson compare every current event to Selma or who reads the latest enviro-disaster headline.But despite those positives there are several major flaws which mar this book. First and most important is that Mr. Shenk, as many modern social critics of both the left and right often do, falls prey to nostalgia. He seems to yearn for the golden age of American discourse, but when precisely was that? He worries that consensus runs "thinner and thinner every year." Would he be refering to the previous political consensus that brought us the Civil War, William Jennings Bryan's Cross of Gold, the imposition and repeal of Prohibition, the McCarthy hearings or the long struggle for civil rights? In fact, I would argue that our differences are much smaller than they used to be (even if we argue about them more loudly). As an example, in the recently concluded election, Bush and Gore argued over whose prescription drug plan was better, not whether there should be one at all.Mr. Shenk also decries the growing specialization of both publications and marketing. But were we really better served when a larger percentage of the nation read Life magazine? And is marketing that allows businesses to provide advertising that is more relevant to each person really bad? I personally enjoy seeing the suggestions that this site provides of books I might be interested in. But I am not powerless to resist that advertising as Mr. Shenk seems to fear.The other major sin, at least in my opinion, is Mr. Shenk's knee-jerk liberalism. This became increasingly obvious whether in his disparaging treatment of President Reagan or Republicans in general or the idea that corporations are somehow, if not quite evil, at least morally corrupting. And his depiction of journalists as paragons of objectivity and reason is laughable to anyone who watches the liberal bias of papers such as the New York Times or the conservative bias of the Washington Times.