There’s the common idea that modern communication is constituted by vapid sound-bites, and thus everyone’s intellect is being corrupted. I mostly disagree and believe greater accessibility to information is a really great thing.
Even if some critics of modern communication have a fair argument (see Paorta’s comments in linked post), it still seems the criticism is generally reactionary. I suspect this reaction is elitism; if any queue dwelling, traffic sitting idiot can effortlessly access information which used to be called a university education, then graduates’ efforts were a waste. The credentials are not credible. If any net surfing stoner can watch lectures and talks online between Half-Life rounds and acquire much of the information prized by patient book readers, then the eye-strain was for nothing.
If it were proven conclusively that online lectures, or even textbook reading without lectures at all, yielded exactly the grades traditional education does (are there studies on this?), I guarantee lectures wouldn’t stop. I really do get the feeling the reaction is primarily a visceral one against eroding the demarcation between the formally educated and the uneducated, and the intelligent readers and unsophisticated visual media consumers.
