Media, the citizen and the state.

Things happen, are witnessed and a story is told. However you take your news, I think it's key to try to analyse what motivates the author. Take time to trust opinions, if at all. If we want to stay informed then world events should be understood just as much as local issues but never without a healthy dose of cynicism, unless of course you consider the news to be a spectator sport. I think that cynicism is a useful tool when attempts are made to avoid opinions becoming polarized. Why is polarization a problem? Creating dramatically opposed viewpoints reduces nuanced positions to 'black and white'. As a result it becomes easier for those who succumb to this process to miss out on the important details and hear only one side of the story. This forces the reader to take sides creating an 'us' and a 'them'. I think this is problematic as it conflicts with the idea that we all seem to appear more alike than we are different and by recognising this we gain a sense of community.

As we all participate in society by default, it's hard to ignore the ways in which co-operation benefits us. If you've ever worked as part of a team you may recall successes which could only be achieved by way of collaboration. That's not to say that individuals can't have a profound impact, it's more that the scope of contribution may be lesser without skill-sharing. Just how an aeroplane would be able to fly without the combined effort of thousands of people is testament to this idea. I propose that it is our inter-connectedness that is our strength and much preferable to the alternative: division.

The reason for me writing this is because I have become concerned about the ways in which headlines and hyperbole affect us all. I am afraid that bad ideas are too readily adopted as a result of their intentionally seductive format and are designed to incite reactionary behaviour. By preying on our emotional response to fear, media outlets create an anxious atmosphere where to be part of a well-defined group equals safety in numbers. When we are confronted by the choice as to whether we are to be included or excluded from the group, mob, mass or herd it will often be deemed less risky to join in rather than to be excluded and become part of the isolated fringe.

Throughout history there have been countless examples of bravery from those who have decided to go against the grain and inspire others to have their voices heard, despite the risk and associated dangers. The year 1930 saw Mahatma Gandhi lead a group of independence protesters on a 240 mile-long March. This was with the intention of illegally producing their own salt in response to the British rule which required Indians to buy salt from them and pay a tax. This inspired millions but ultimately ended with Gandhi arrested and the protesters beaten. Similarly today we see in Iran the peaceful protest by young woman to remove their headscarfs. Mahsa Amini was one such woman who died after being arrested by the police for supposedly violating the country’s hijab rules. Since then there are many reports suggesting numerous more deaths and beatings in response to the civil disobedience.

Without these actors we would be at threat of change seemingly becoming impossible. If we are anything as creatures we are exceptionally adapted to rapidly changing environments and this skill I believe should not be underestimated.

However the threat of losing personal freedoms for a cause is typically a sufficient deterrent against unwanted reform. Pablo Escobar famously offered, "Plata o plomo" to those who he wished to persuade and I'm not sure how many of us would choose a bullet over a bribe for any cause regardless of it's importance to us. Honest journalists are often the victims of such impossible propositions.

So how might we counter this problem of opposition to change and coercion? I think a consolidated effort to encourage critical thinking might be a good start, not just at a compulsory educational level but also where there is an apparent absence of those skills at any level of society. I believe from experience that simple logic exercises could empower more people than what can currently be achieved by providing access to information and communication alone. In addition to this I can imagine a world where classical news and media cycles would take responsibility and report the factual basis of events and social issues from a determinedly unbiased perspective. Perhaps a review of the role, culture and economic model of our most popular news sources would be in order, to try and reduce the scope for misinterpretation and dampen the oft-observed rhetoric.

Over time we might then build a stronger capability across our global society to understand key issues together, instead of consuming the news as if it were entertainment. This does mean actively, not passively, using media sources to inform our opinions and approach issues with a rational clarity so obviously missing from the mainstream forum of public opinion. This I believe may restore some balance of power to the citizen and make it increasingly more difficult for abuses to go unchallenged. The media, like our government, have the power to dictate how we form relationships with each other and our world. How we guard against dystopian futures might just rely on how we choose to form relationships with them.