“Less is more”. This proverbial phrase we all know (which, for the curious, although of widespread use in architecture to identify simplicity of forms and spaces to create good design, it is first found formulated in Robert Browning’s 1855 poem Andrea del Sarto, the “impeccable painter” of the 15th century – so next time you win Who Wants to Be a Millionaire), is the suggested approach to take when inquiring about politics.
A fundamental prerequisite for robust democracies is that citizens are reasonably informed about politics and current affairs. The problem is that the Web, offering a great abundance of content, transforms the attention of citizens into a resource scarce. Previously, in a mass media system, information was scarce and the packaging in the form of an “attention trap” was precisely the activity of newspapers: an ordered set of information necessary for citizenship (“the mass” – hence then “mass media” – receiving a “unique” message). Today, in the age of the Net, information is abundant and attention is scarce – trapped more by the platforms that distribute information (aggregators, social media, etc.), rather than by the producers of information themselves (newspapers). . To quote the Nobel laureate in economics Herbert A. Simon (1970), “a wealth of information creates poverty of attention”.
In fact, in a cacophonous and hyper-connected world like that of the Net, focus on few but good sources of information presents itself as the only sustainable solution to learn (and not just passively “read”) the different contents to which we are continuously exposed on different platforms from different producers (newspapers, blogs, newsletters, podcasts, videos, posts, influencers, tweets. .. the list is now endless!).
So … what to read? How to choose what to read? How much to read?
I receive many of these questions, especially from most young people, who approach the reading of newspapers (and to the choices of citizens with critical thinking) in an often unguided way (how much it would be necessary to educate to the reading and identification of reliable or fake news, especially online!).
And, as a 27-year-old, I did too – and I keep asking these questions. Do I read enough? What source to consult for this topic? Do I feel really well informed on this matter?
Precisely because I also always seek the right reading balance clever, I want to share with you the research I am presenting here – the result of which surprised me. Because perhaps being workaholic readers does not always bear fruit.
The new study just published in the International Journal of Press / Politics from 18 academics examines the correlation between online and offline media consumption habits of over 28,000 people in 17 European countries, and their learning on political issues.
The paper not only clearly identified five prototypes of news readers (and “users”) (especially useful for those who work in journalism and want to better understand those who interface with their publishing products), but it has also unveiled a balanced reading diet, which can guide us in our choices of “doses” and daily sources of information.
Focusing on the audience rather than the content (always approach appreciable in an editorial world with a business model that cannot only be content centric but must have the user at the center – and know him as deeply as the platforms that fight for the attention of that same audience), this study provides an analysis complete and detailed how the places of contemporary European political information contribute to an informed citizenship.
The study finds that the coupons old traditional media (TV, quality newspapers, radio) are probably the best for acquiring and expanding one’s political knowledge, including public service – if of high quality. A select number of online news items can also be useful.
But, paradoxically, bulimically we gorge ourselves on many, too many news (especially online!) could leave us less informed than those who, on the other hand, know how to be more selective (and, in this sense, fans of “less is more”). Too much is good: but why?
Let’s look specifically what this study reveals to us (the direct translation of the research itself is quoted). The second nomenclature is a poetic license of the undersigned.
Who are the 5 reader prototypes?
1- minimalist readers, 17%. Ecologists. “Those who rarely consume news and use very few media or platforms are also the least politically interested, they don’t realize they will be well informed regardless of whether they actively follow the news … and are older and slightly more educated than the average news user “.
2- social media news readers, 22%. The hippies. “They mainly inform themselves through social media and consume little information […] they are often exposed to the news through platforms such as Facebook, Twitter or Instagram. […] They are younger than the average user and show low levels of trust in the media. They are also the least educated and politically interested “. They believe in the “news will find me” model, news will find me. To be clear, thanks to social media, the news “will appear”. Exactly, hippie.
3- traditionalists, 19%. The conservatives. “[…] they prefer traditional news sources and public service. They watch more TV than the previous two profiles (also supported by greater exposure to infotainment television programs such as political talk shows) and use traditional newspapers and radio. Also, they are the oldest and most educated, politically interested, confident in the media. ”They are, for the most part, men.
4- online news researchers, as much as 32%. The Indiana Joneses (or better to say, The Indiana Jones). “They are exposed to the news and tend to actively use various information sources and online platforms and are generally women. They have a richer and more sophisticated media repertoire (large numbers of news outlets, different genres and types of media) and are more inclined to seek out similar ideas to their own in the political sphere. “
5- news hyperconsumers, 10%. The marathon runners. “Individuals in this group abundantly use all kinds of news channels and platforms. […] They reported using six to seven news outlets and more than three social media platforms to follow the news over the past 30 days. They are also very politically interested and confident in the media ”. I feel like I belong in this category – and, if you’ve come to read this far, you’re probably into it too.
The percentages refer to the aggregate sample but it changes the density according to the areas (Northern and Southern Europe) and European countries? Yes – and some very interesting behavioral trends of different European citizens are revealed.
UK, Netherlands, Germany, France tend to have high share of minimalist consumers (Researchers link this to the fact that “news minimalists are more prevalent in globalized and heterogeneous societies showing high movement of people through labor mobility , migration and cosmopolitanism “). But throughout much of southern and eastern Europe (our Italy, Spain, Poland and Romania), news readers are much more “online news seekers” or “news hyperconsumers”, with peaks in consumption on the Internet and social media – compared to other Europeans.
Why? “They are readily and cheaply available sources and established media are generally considered less reliable due to a history of political partisanship and exploitationAlso, there is no habit of subscribing to quality newspaper subscriptions or membership, so online it becomes synonymous with free information – and in large quantities.
But what is the most efficient diet to be up to date and smart about news of politics and current affairs? The diet followed, for the most part, by women, online news researchers and traditionalists (mostly men) and certainly not hyperconsumers like me.
Too many information and “stimulations” do not help to our intellectual health, on the political front: “Hyperconsumers have far greater problems converting their use of news into knowledge than traditionalists and selective online news seekers,” the study says.
So our Roi in terms of time dedicated to reading … is to be rejected! In addition to overcrowding of ideas – why is it not effective? When we are exposed to a large amount of news, we often “scan” the news rather than read it deeply – as can be done by those who, on the other hand, read less but thoroughly. For this reason, there is little absorption and more is the smattering.
Those who read little, such as minimalists, know little. Maybe obvious but the initial “less is more” could be misleading, so here I take away any doubts: do not read maintains ignorant. From social networks, of course, you learn little about politics: “[…] the potential positive effects of accidental exposure to news information on social networks could be offset by exposure […] to user-generated content and unreliable information transmitted through personalized flows and other like-minded, like-minded people. “
The “serendipity” effect e casual discovery of information it does not compensate enough for the “fake news” + “filter bubble” effect. Wins quality versus quantity.
And for this reason, products such as newsletters or “content hubs” win, which are able to collect, in predefined topic clusters, the little information necessary to be informed about a vertical. For this the selection and filter function wins that some traditional and non-traditional media (even some social pages, for example – such as Will Italia, Factanza, Torcha) propose to do – and make it an economic asset that makes the editorial model sustainable (often, in fact, a membership or a community is born – with its revenues, direct or indirect).
Voltaire wrote: “Do not abuse … neither abstinence nor excess have ever made man happy“. You can’t blame him, not even in terms of diet. A little bit of everything and you live (smart) for a hundred years.
Sources: what to read more on the subject
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/19401612211012572
https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/less-is-more.html#:~:text=
https://www.niemanlab.org/2021/05/whats-the-healthiest-news-diet-probably-traditional-media-but-dont-gorge-yourself-too-much-can-leave-you-less-informed/
http://nepocs.eu/current-activities/
Il libro di Herbert Simon “Designing Organizations For An Information-Rich World”, 1971
Davenport and Beck’s book “The Attention Economy”, 2001
.