2024 marks a milestone for many of “Generation Z” (born 1997 to 2012). Most of them will have spent more than half their lives with a smartphone in their hands. Hence, the descriptor “digital native.” How do I know this? Well, I was born in 2000; I’m a Gen Zer.  

My observation is that we may be able to navigate the technological world deftly; however, it’s not clear we command the same skill in assessing the information therein. 

I’m not alone. A 2023 study found that Gen Z encounters information through a lens prioritising social belonging over truth. 

 We also demonstrate a tendency to curate “information ecosystems” comprising “short, emotionally manageable, [and] personally relevant” content. 

Thus, our print media, hoping to stay relevant, is trying to appeal to Gen Z. Stuff has introduced 30-second Instagram reel-style “Shorts,” TVNZ “Re:News,” and The Herald, “What the Actual?” In my view, the latter two have as much journalistic rigour as university student magazines. 

Gen Z increasingly lacks adequate epistemic criteria, such as credibility or reliability.

The problem with such ultra-short-form media is that the snappy format provides minimal context and is filtered through a group-think lens that tells us what to think, not how to think. 

So, my generation, already impaired in comprehending, critiquing, and rationally engaging with different opinions and observable facts, may encounter more misinformation. 

Some examples? The 20-year-old I recently met who was disgusted by the Israel-Gaza conflict but also utterly unaware of Hamas’ brutal October attack on Israel. 

Or a public servant I talked to who worried that recent graduates have seemingly never been challenged on their rigid, activist policy positions and worldviews. 

Gen Z increasingly lacks adequate epistemic criteria, such as credibility or reliability. Combining poorly developed historical consciousnesses and “feeds,” this is a recipe for cultural disaster.  

The problem isn’t entirely our fault. Instead, our institutions have failed to help us navigate endless, instant access to information. 

What could possibly buck this insidious trend? 

History provides the essential foundation needed to assess the accuracy of the constant digital onslaught vying for our attention.  

A book. Reading is a discipline we can very easily lose. Re-training our brains and attention spans away from bitesize “takes” is difficult. Still, there is probably no better antidote to the malaise I’ve described than being introduced to as wide a range of knowledge and perspectives from sources that are more likely to be of quality, edited, and vetted.  

In the US, Stanford’s Reading like a Historian, trains students in skills such as contextualisation, corroboration, and source reliability. It markedly increases students’ historical reasoning and reading comprehension.  

Professor Sam Wineberg, one of the book’s authors, notes: “If our curriculum has anything to do with career preparation … Its focus is the vocation of the citizen. The digital world demands this approach.” 

It would be transformative if an equivalent of this programme were introduced and made compulsory for our intermediate and secondary schools. History provides the essential foundation needed to assess the accuracy of the constant digital onslaught vying for our attention.  

As attention spans contract, developing critical thinkers and lifelong learners has never been so vital. Please buy that book. The next time you see a Gen Zer hunched over their phone, give it to us.