*sigh* You should stop talking now.
Kay, but I'm still right. The opening up of information via new technology is possibly the greatest thing to ever happen to us as a species. At least since the printing press.
There's a bit of an old man vibe from the critique of the XBox and Playstation. But I don't think that distracts from the point that he made which was valid. Listen, I don't really agree with Obama, if I'm going to say that he has a point it's because he has a valid point. And I do think it's harder now than in the past and a lot of that has more to do with our resolve to do our duty, to make sure we're knowledgeable, to keep up on government affairs than it does with any gaming platform. But in an age where information is at the tips of our fingers, where we can find out just about anything, there's even less excuse for this type of behavior. Instead, we're so caught up in the entertainment that we've made everything a little show. It's not time to stop, before it's too late.
Well, for one thing, people who don't pay attention to politics tend to not vote, which I have nothing against, so I don't really see it as much of a "duty".
Now, for voters, being informed could probably be described as a duty. But I don't think it's gotten harder to keep up with this duty; in fact, the opposite. Information is so much easier to access now than before, being informed on who and what is on the ballot has never been easier. Beyond that even, every little fact that might be interesting needs only to be discovered by one person before it is spread throughout the entire blogosphere; before, that one person would likely end up being the only one who knew. New technology has facilitated the spread not of untruth, but primarily, of truth. Untruth spreads just as fast, yes, but as soon as it is discredited, the truth will spread via the same means and reverse the untruth.
A lot of what you and Obama are saying seems to be about people confusing fact with opinion, which is partially true, but misses the point, which is that almost all information comes through a filter, and no filter is inherently better than the other. It used to be that our filters were basically selected for us; now it is much less controlled. This means that some people will end up listening to Glenn Beck or going to Democratic Underground as their filters. But those people freely made that decision given the vast amount of options available to them. This would suggest that the problem lies not with either Beck or Underground, but with the people who chose to trust them. Such people would have to be the same level of crazy as both of those to make such a decision in the first place. With a whole realm of options available, and with each one under unprecedented scrutiny given the pace that the discovery of any disinformation on their part can now spread, society can now do as the free market does and filter out the filters such that the most reliable end up with the most prestige.
Frankly, all information presented via a filter - most information - should be seen as what it is: one perspective, where more than one perspective is necessary to really know what you're talking about. With more perspectives more easily available now, finding multiple perspectives is much easier to do than it was before.