By B. Shurin
This week during oral arguments in the Supreme Court
regarding the constitutionality of Obama’s Healthcare law, the members
of the press were without their phones and mobile devices for the
entire time they were sitting in and listening to the arguments.
In our times, news is broadcasted almost instantly with the help of
Facebook, Twitter, 4G networks and the like. This restriction,
reinforced by the court, brings the reporters back to a time when they
would have to run to a nearby payphone to call in a scoop after the
big story broke. This week, those reporters wishing to report the
details of the arguments needed to wait until after the two hour court
session had ended or leave the courtroom in middle and risk missing
out on something more newsworthy.
This rule by the court agrees with the general
psychosocial consensus as to how the technological revolution has
influenced us. A recent article in the New York Times recounted a
growing phenomenon of young and successful men and women who are, by
the author’s own account, “smartphone holdouts”. These individuals
cite multiple reasons for hanging on to their ‘dumbphones’, despite
being prime candidates for smartphone ownerships in terms of
demographics. Some people are simply refusing to get sucked into the
game of instantaneous communication, whether with work-contacts or
peripheral acquaintances. Perhaps more importantly, people worry about
the effect constant access to the internet has on their critical
thinking, creativity, and interpersonal relationships. The author
Jonathan Safran Foer relinquished his smartphone after he realized he
was checking his phone while bathing his children. He decided to
choose to live in the present, rather than being preoccupied with
“tossed off emails from people [he] barely know[s]”. He says his
writing has improved tremendously. As stated by Nicholas Carr in his
book, “The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to our Brains”, the
pervasiveness of the internet has “diminishe[d] the ability to sustain
focus and think interpretatively”.
This article reminded me about a short video I saw
recently, produced in an effort to get people to “disconnect and enjoy
life”. Although the actors and some of the scenes reflect Orthodox
Judaism, the underlying theme is universal. The video portrays how
people using their smartphones constantly, whether to check their
email, surf the internet, or text others, are missing out on what is
going on around them in real time. One scene depicts a father pushing
an empty swing in the park, as he browsed the web on his smartphone.
When he put his phone away, his daughter reappeared on the swing and
the world around him came back into focus.
When the Supreme Court forbade tweeting and other
instantaneous mobile devices during this crucial case, perhaps it did
so with the hope that people would be forced to do just that: focus on
and think interpretatively about the present, without the pressure to
instantly report fragmented news lacking thoughtful interpretation.
This is a great post. However, I think that an argument can be made that permitting reporters to tweet live updates does have significant benefits. Namely, it enables greater citizen involvement in, and understanding of, our legal system.
I myself am guilty of not being able to separate myself from the communication stream since making the “dumbphone” to “smartphone” switch. However, I have been making an effort to bring myself back to the present reality and take more time to contemplate, rather than simply jumping into constant engagement. Being able to focus on and enjoy the present is a healthy approach to life in general, but I also think that in the context of intellectual discourse, time to reflect is critical. I can understand why the Court did not want instantaneous updates on the oral arguments to be going up, as Tweeting decontextualized clips of the arguments without the full background of the discussion and ongoing debate could amount to placing meaningless chatter on the Internet about an issue of extreme importance.
While the blog makes an interesting point, I think this needs to be considered within a broader context. The legal system imposes various rules which prevent the storytelling necessary to ensure justice. I would argue that this attempt to suppress the immediate public disclosure of information regarding a case negatively effects the ability to understand the full picture of a case. Immediate reactions, unfiltered through a barrage of political rhetoric after the fact, have some value. A public forum to have your grievances heard should include a public forum with tweeting capabilities.