What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos


Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers


Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge


Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more
With rendition switcher


David Remnick: I think about this a lot, the New Yorker on the Web. And I think that if I were in Bill Keller’s position, which is the editor of the New York Times; or Lynn Downey’s at the Washington Post, my sense of the Web would be different than my sense as the editor of the New Yorker.

If you’re the editor of a newspaper, your sense of the Web is existential. In other words, if you’re honest with yourself, you know that nobody under a certain age, or essentially nobody, is reading the paper on paper, or going to read it on paper for much longer.

We know all the stuff about reading habits. I won’t bore you with it, but you know it to be the case. And it is probable that the best technology for reading the newspaper, for navigating the newspaper, not for advertising, but for reading the thing itself, is the Web.

Laptops get better. They become more portable. They’re unbelievably fast. You can search around them. To say nothing of the extra things that newspapers have learned to give their readers, including audio, video and what not.

On the other hand, it’s arguable that the best technology so far for reading, at least my magazine, the New Yorker, is the magazine. In other words, the best technology so far for reading a 14,000 word piece might be that thing you roll up, shove into your bag and take with you on the train that you can’t with the Web.

I don’t see many people reading long New Yorker pieces on a PDA in the subway, or on commuter trains or airplanes. I don’t.

Now all that said, I want to be there for everybody. And I want to develop a Web site that is there for everybody. I’ve got to make it work economically as well.

Now if you told me in 50 years the New Yorker won’t be on paper, I wouldn’t be shocked. I’d be sad maybe. I don’t think that’s the case, but again prediction is the lowest form of human endeavor, I think. My job is not that. My job is to be there for everyone; for them to read it in a way that’s convenient and even beautiful in both senses.

Question: Does a Web presence compromise the New Yorker brand? 

David Remnick: If the New Yorker is done poorly on the Web it will compromise the New Yorker. And we’ve thought about this a lot. 

In other words, if we try to keep pace with the Web so that we’re not checking things; so that it’s not proofread; so that it’s a mess, then we just become one more Web site. And then I’m not quite sure what we’re worth. If it’s done with the same sense of standards and care, then I’m happy to do it, enthusiastic to do it.


Recorded on Jan 7, 2008



The New Yorker 2.0: What wo...

Newsletter: Share: