A Click-Thru (sic) Culture?

This is a helpful observation from this article, TheOOZE beta | evolving spirituality. � A Click-Thru Culture (by Eric Wright):

"rushing toward the next thing without taking time to enjoy the beauty and presence of what is in front of us. We are looking for something to excite us, catch our attention, thrill us, or appeal to us all in the first 6 seconds! If we don’t find it we declare, “There is nothing here!” and we move on.
We have turned into a click-thru culture."

I think that the habitus that click-through encourages may well be as stated here. What I'm more troubled by is the way the author suggests we respond.
I’m no longer interested in catering to the click-thru crowd. They are a fickle and lazy

group; needy and selfish. So lately I have been asking a new question, “Who am I going to invest my time in?

”
My difficulty is that it seems to exemplify an approach that is unlike that which God takes towards humanity in Christ. While there may be some justification for investing ones time in those who are hungry and willing (that seems to me to be the way that significant chunks of Jesus' ministry are constructed), I'm concerned that effectively writing whole groves of people off a priori seems a bit more Flood than Incarnation. What I mean by that is that in the Flood the approach is to write off all but one family, whereas in the Incarnation the approach is to find a way to presence and communicate even amidst those who are 'yet sinners'. What this may mean for the "click-through crowd" would be to find ways to entice them, intrigue them and to encourage them to linger with images, ideas or whatever that may both help disclose something that leads Godward and to (re-)develop the habits of lingering, contemplating and spending time in slow reflection.

This is not a new problem: spiritual exercise writing and teaching down the ages is full of advice to help people make the same adjustment to reflection, meditation and contemplation. It's just the medium and influence that has changed. I fear that the author may have fallen prey to the old problem of thinking that modern life is throwing up unprecedented challenges. I tend to think that it throws up precedented challenges in new guises. Our task is not to decry the new guises but to spot the precedents and re-work tried and tested responses in appropriate ways, understanding the new and the old helpfully. I would hazard that we will rarely need to come up with a totally new tactic. I would also suggest, contrariwise to this article, that we should be wary of writing off whole and easily-identifiable populations: the gospel seems to me to suggest that there are likely to be receptive people in every group, our issue will be how to connect with them meaningfully.