What will search-engine “personalization” do to journalism and the information that people receive?
Almost every day, I hear and see more evidence that we will soon be free of the burden of receiving news we don't really want to hear. You can now choose media sources based on their ideological slant. If you're a so-called conservative, it's Fox “news”, Rush Limbaugh, and an endless stream of conservative websites. If you're a so-called liberal, it's MSNBC, and an equal supply of web sites.
But the big smoking gun is Google. Google is now offering ever-improving personalization in your searches. Google says it will now use your web browsing history in order to refine your searches and present you with the options for which you have shown a preference. In other words, you will be shown more of what you already think.
For example, a person who frequents Fox “News” on the web and/or conservative blog sites will likely see this page: Limbaugh: 'Obama has yet to prove he's a citizen' at the top of his search and not this one on Snopes.com: Birth Certificate . Sure, the other result will probably still be in the search results, but it's well known that people don't typically go too far down the list – most take what's near the top.
So now you won't have to worry about information contradicting your own opinions. You can think whatever you thought yesterday, and probably find some information source to back you up. Of course, it's long been known that the internet is a place (in cyberspace) where you could do exactly this – look only at the sources that you prefer. But now Google is making it that much easier. Google's personalization mechanisms have actually been in place for some quite some time, but the system takes a while to “learn” whether you're a redneck or a longhair (or whatever delineation you like) so the effects are probably seeping into society slowly.
What will be the psychological effects of search-engine personalization (that is, beside the creepy sensation that you are being watched – you are!)? It seems to me that if what you already expect shows up in all the highest-ranked results of a search, you might start to feel like there simply is no reasonable, intelligent alternative to your version of the truth. Because you have seen lots of “hard evidence” backing up your views, people who think otherwise must be stupid or crazy or both, right? They obviously haven't done any real “research”.
So what about the “mainstream media”? How do they please those who like to be pleased and, at the same time, anger those who like to be angered? Well, the major networks' news departments seem to have adopted a teeter-totter approach, with a story that sounds liberal (like that people die in wars) followed by a story that sounds conservative (like that people are angry at the government over unemployment).
It now appears that the profession formerly known as journalism has been infiltrated by politics. When I watch the news, my neck gets sore from watching the ping-pong ball go back and forth: “Since we just offended the half of our viewers who think that facts are partisan, we will now offend the other half with this story about a senator, an underage girl, and a member of different species.” I'm offended, all right. I'm offended by the game itself.
Welcome to the new America – where the cows run free (at least some of them) but the people have their feet stuck in partisan cement.