‘A Theory of Dumb’

This week marks the end of classes at UP Cebu, where I teach three units of media laws and ethics. Because of the twin calamities that hit Cebu in the last quarter of this year, there have been pleas to end the semester early, do away with the long exams, and adopt a no-fail policy.

Fortunately (or unfortunately) for my students, I am among those who believe firmly in in-person learning over asynchronous activities and online sessions, and likewise in getting back to routine as soon as possible as part of the healing process after a calamity.

But still, I made adjustments for leniency, though in a way that would remain consistent with my conscience as regards academic standards. How would you like future journalists or lawyers, for example, who are products of repeated missing class hours, snap-asynchronous modality, and no-fail policies every time a calamity hits or even just a threat of flooding occurs?

Another reason why I insisted on meeting my students in person during the remaining weeks of the semester is that I wanted to deliver a concluding lecture in person that would sum up our semester’s lessons on media ethics in light of today’s challenges in the information ecosystem. I would like to share highlights of that lecture-discussion delivered last Thursday.

“Over the semester we talked about law, ethics, and the power of media to inform or to deceive, to clarify or to confuse. I want to end with a compelling November 2025 article, ‘A Theory of Dumb,’ published in the New York Magazine,” I told my students.

“The article argues that today’s information ecosystem may be lowering our IQ or ability to think critically, to reason, and to solve problems. Is it true: our information environment has become more stupid? It is not just about individual stupidity, but more on structural stupidity: systems that reward speed, outrage, and simplicity over depth, accuracy, and fairness.

“As we finally end the semester, I want you to ponder: what does it mean to practice media and communication ethics in a world that feels like it is dumb? Or to put it mildly, in a world that seems to lack wisdom or accountability?

“I grew up in a world where TV and radio networks, as well as newspapers, shaped public opinion. Today, as the article suggests, the medium is no longer just a device or a platform. The medium is the mob: a massive, decentralized crowd talking, arguing, reacting all at once.

“Who is ‘the media’ now if everyone can publish? If the medium is the mob, who carries ethical responsibility – journalists, influencers, platforms, audiences, or all of the above? How does responsibility change when you are not a reporter with a press ID, just a person with a phone and a large following?

“Let me ask a few more questions: When you post on X, TikTok, or Facebook about an issue or controversy, what ethical duties do you assume at that moment, if any? Is it still meaningful to hold journalists to higher ethical standards than ordinary users (netizens), when ordinary users can set the agenda or go viral faster than newsrooms? If ‘the medium is the mob,’ what would an ethical mob look like? Can netizens act responsibly, or is that just fantasy?

“‘A Theory of Dumb’ says that to get anything through the noise today, the winners are those who can compress: a 1-minute explainer, a screenshot of a thread, a chart or meme that ‘captures everything.’ Our first contact with information is rarely the original work; it is a compressed, third- or fourth-hand version.

“We teach you that journalism rests on a solid foundation of fact-gathering, topped by layers of interpretation and opinion. ‘A Theory of Dumb’ says that the pyramid has been flipped. Now we have a wide base of takes on several issues wobbling on a shrinking base of facts.

“So let me ask a few more questions: Think of the last big issue you learned about online. Did you first encounter it through original reporting, or through a meme, a TikTok, a reaction thread? How did that shape your understanding? As future media workers, is it ethical to specialize in “compression” (making catchy summaries) if you are not the one doing the hard work of fact-gathering and reporting on the ground? When news organizations chase clicks by turning themselves into commentary machines, are they simply adapting to survive, or are they betraying their public-service role?” (To be continued)