red bar

The Looming Calamity of Multitasking

There’s near unanimity in the research that critical thinking declines when we fragment our attention.

There are any number of YouTube videos offered by experienced pilots and investigators assessing what went wrong after an airplane was involved in an accident. Fortunately, these accidents do not always result in deaths. And as many have noted, the riskiest part of flying in commercial aircraft is driving to the airport. But what is noticeable in these useful post accident “debriefs” is that the person in command of a flight often forgets one of the first rules of aviating: first and always, Fly the Plane. Distraction is a major contributor to mishaps. Confusing instrument readings, incorrect settings and a hundred other things can go wrong. And they can begin to consume all of the attention of those in the cockpit. Problems dramatically escalate if a captain forgets to monitor the basics, including maintaining sufficient airspeed, keeping safe altitudes and choosing the right headings. Long troubleshooting checklists are useful, but also distracting. They contribute to the same delusion most of the rest of us share that we can do several things well at once. We can’t. Our brains have not evolved to undertake simultaneous and  complex actions at the same time.

Second Thoughts Banner

This can apply to driving as well. The comparison is apt because driving safely on America’s roads has become an all-hands-on-deck endeavor. To be less than present is to be a looming danger to oneself and others. For example, a driver on a handheld phone has the reduced competency we associate with alcohol impairment. They can no longer monitor conditions to act defensively. This partly explains the rise of pedestrian deaths, resulting from drivers who have found too many other things to do while supposedly minding their two ton machine. What applies in the air applies even more on the ground. first, Drive the Car.  

red bar

We are simply not wired to split short-term memory between a variety of stimuli. We may think otherwise. But there’s near unanimity in the literature on comprehension that critical thinking and response rates decline when we fragment our attention. To put it simply, multitasking makes us a little bit stupid. As researcher Clifford Nass famously noted, multitaskers are “suckers for irrelevancy.”  Because “everything distracts them,” their intellectual performance on important tasks deteriorates. Sometimes the person addicted to a digital stew of stimuli is the last to know that they have become intellectually impaired. It’s a common mistake to assume that being “busy” means being “fully engaged.” We perform our busyness as a badge of honor. But it is closer to the truth that the more we construct lives around external stimuli, the less we are able to get past the self-induced distraction that they create.

On America’s campuses the sacred cow of full connectivity makes it a virtual certainty that, while students may be placing their bodies in the classroom, their minds are elsewhere. Multi-tasking in educational settings is the norm. One Stanford faculty member notes that his research indicates a full quarter of his students are trying to use four different media at the same time while there are ostensibly focused on writing term papers. And the results are not pretty. Distracted writers give themselves the mental acuity of a child.

Try a simple experiment. Attempts to read your e-mail or a series of text messages while also listening to someone explain how to get to an address on the other side of town. No GPS allowed. An active and full-time listener will probably process the directions correctly, or ask questions until they have the mental map they need. The encumbered listener is more likely to end up lost, often compounding their distraction by calling from a moving car to get new directions.

The fragmentation of daily life into competing activities undermines competencies we value.

red bar

Of course there are still those from all walks of life who still have the will to track the exposition of a complex idea for an extended period; younger readers happily caught in the thrall of a writer or literary genre; newspaper consumers who will follow an investigative story across three pages of a broadsheet; or the curious who are sufficiently engaged to listen to another for a sustained amount of time. But these individuals increasingly seem to be cultural outliers. We now tend to notice the rare person capable of full devotion to just one thing, sometimes flipping the arrows by wondering if they have some sort of condition.

So the caution stands: the fragmentation of daily life into competing multiple activities undermines competencies we should want to nurture. Lie to yourself if you must; but you are not exempt. The things worth doing in life –-if they are truly worthy of our time–are too important to be compromised by incessant interruption. My guess is that Joseph Haydn would have never gotten around to writing 106 symphonies if he had owned a smartphone and an e-mail account. How would he have had the time?

black bar

Revised square logo

flag ukraine

two color line

The Changed Media Landscape for Public Radio

Was I wrong in 2016? What does it mean when virtually every American in the country can listen to any radio station, music streaming or podcast service anywhere at any time?

A forum of public radio executives on The College of New Jersey campus in December of 2016 made it apparent that the medium was generally holding its own. Panelists included the Chairperson of the Board of NPR and news executives from WNYC in New York and WHYY in Philadelphia. Then, audience sizes were larger, contributions from sustaining members were up, and many stations were benefiting from powerful streaming technologies. True, there were hints that storm clouds. The broadcast medium that was at the very center of the American experience during and after World War II was beginning to see more restless audiences and enterprising operators who delivered content digitally, without the need for a broadcast license. We now take for granted that Alexa and Spotify will deliver more customized content at any time, with far less effort from us. In 2016 I didn’t appreciate how this storm might arrive. A post I wrote that year optimistically declared that “Public Radio Thrives.” But even then, WNYC’s Dean Cappello nailed what was changing in this new era of media abundance: “The audience is in charge now.”

Our forum centered National Public Radio, with an astounding 1000 affiliates in every corner of the country. Most nations have somewhat similar non-commercial radio networks, including France 24, Germany’s Deutsche Welle and Britain’s multi-channel BBC. They usually adhere to the broad mainstream of their own societies, usually with a slight tilt toward a more progressive view of politics and human affairs. But all must now contend with other audio sources who can gain access to listeners simply by having a studio and an internet address.

BBC

Add into this vastly enlarged field the fact that “legacy” print and “broadcast” media are in the fifth decade of a disordered contraction. In the U.S. newspapers have declined to the point of disappearing in many cities. Traditional Network television news from ABC, NBC and CBS no longer dominates as they once did. Formerly influential magazines like Time and The Atlantic see their futures mostly in non-print digital forms, while most still covering the national scene, like Slate and The Daily Beast, are struggling to pay their reduced staffs through total or partial paywalls. In terms of access, it is the best of times for a person ready to try their hand in digital journalism. But in terms of making a comfortable and secure living at it, it may be the worst of times.

NPR News logo

Against this background, in some ways NPR looks less robust than it did a half decade ago. It has been under pressure to diversify its staff and audience. And, indeed, there is a greater variety of voices on its air. But as the trade magazine Current noted, “NPR’s newsroom is more diverse than its listener base.” Those listening at least once a week have dropped from 60 million in 2020 to 42 million today. In March, the network laid off close to 10 percent of their staff in an attempt to close a $30 million budget gap.  And recent internal data made available to the New York Times showed that NPR’s audience was 76 percent white, 11.9 percent Latinx, 9.2 percent Black and 5.1 percent Asian.

To be sure, attracting younger and non-white listeners has always been a challenge. It is apparent that social media have swallowed up the attention of younger Americans, mostly for the worse, since much of it’s content is light years away from the public service perspective that has defined public radio.

Even the idea of a radio network has changed. Formerly, a listener that wanted to listen to landmark content like All Things Considered, Fresh Air or Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me needed to tune in to a local station. Now, all of those programs are available as podcasts, frustrating affiliates who traditionally raised money from listeners to those network shows.

If these challenges of streaming, podcasting and America’s declining appetite for straight news were not enough, grumbles about salary discrepancies between the old guard and newer staffers have added tensions. Cultural nerve endings rising from increased awareness of past injustices against women and racial groups, altering what a media organization can program without triggering a backlash. In January of 2021 three high profile hosts and women of color–Noel King, Lulu Garcia-Navarro, and Audie Cornish–all left the network, with organizational tensions and unequal pay as reasons. And last month a senior producer made complaints about a “liberal bias” that were picked up by the growing numbers of journalists who follow the media exclusively.

Understandably, in media circles declines in audience numbers are always taken as a bad sign. And yet it is trend not just for NPR, but radio in general, and for theatrical films and publishing as well. The days of legacy sources like city newspapers, national magazines, and massive television audiences are perhaps gone for good. While there are still big media “players,” a period when any single source can function as a big tent matching the reach of, say, CBS News in the 1960s and 70s, seems gone as well. Back then, a program like the CBS Evening News could attract a huge 27 million households. The nation came together for this and the other legacy network programs. But that does not happen any more. We don’t have “mass media” in the ways we used to. And no doubt that will include NPR, which will have to build its audiences from a more fragmented pool of Americans.

black bar

logo 2