Complex Answers

Berlin, 2010“You want it to be one way…” as the character Marlo Stanfield once put it. When we look out at the world or when we look to our various sources of information about what is happening to ourselves and to others, we seek explanations.  Explanations into how and why, into who wronged who, and to what is a solution if there is a solution. Some like the long detailed explanations, while more seem to want summaries, short versions, and just the latest info.  Often times, the more complex an issue is, the harder it is for us to grasp, and the lower the desire to take the time and energy to understand it.

From there come the simple labels, the us versus them, the quest to find who to blame, and the practice visualizing what side we want to be on. Liberals and conservatives; pro-life and anti-abortion; pro-war and anti-war; socialist and capitalist; hippy and yuppy; the list is far longer and spans the globe.  Rare is the individual who can resist finding themselves in such a group, even more rare is one who can avoid being placed in such a group by others.

Why does this happen? The quest to simplify it all perhaps. The need to take a complicated issue and break it into basic parts in order to decide what we believe is to be done about it.  This simplification is sometimes done after extensive or ongoing research, and sometimes it is done based on un-empirical influences.  Whatever side you take, whatever facts you choose to use, in the end you can look at a conflict and say “this is where I am on this.”  From there you can either sleep soundly, or spend your waking hours fighting like hell to communicate and bring to fruition the resolution you wish to see.

I thought of this phenomenon alot while I was in Afghanistan. But I think of it anytime I visit the US or even right here in the Netherlands as I watch socio-political debates on TV.  Some Afghans will tell you they don’t want any foreign military in their country, but if you keep talking to them they will tell you they do want foreign military assistance.  Some Americans who have read through the proposed new healthcare plan will tell you they don’t want this plan but they do want a universal healthcare plan.  An experienced Dutch journalist working in Afghanistan can tell you she is in favor of the Dutch sending people to help with keeping and improving peace in Afghanistan but she will also tell you she’s not in favor of just any kind of Dutch involvement.

Yet it is more common, or perhaps just more visible in today’s massive public sphere, for people to tell you it is one way or the other in any of the situations listed above.  Take most any conflict in any country these days, you’ll find a loud group of people saying it is one way, and a loud group of people saying it is the other.  Anyone who points out the complexity and tries to explain it is somehow considered not as legitimate, perhaps because they’re often not waving a banner in front of governments or standing in front of a camera on prime time television.

One of the great dangers of our time, as I have seen in my short life and extensive travels, is this push to simplify everything so that it all fits in a box or a category and we don’t have to learn and appreciate the complexity of what is happening around us.

Not Just Comments

This site… or blog if you prefer to call it.. is fast approaching its 7th year in existence.? The podcast, soon to be on its 5th year. And even years before any of this, I edited my own little website on a long forgotten service called geocities, where I would write news commentary. And the one constant throughout all of this, besides my concern for the world and the fact that many of you were reading along even back then, has been a place for comments.

Comments on the internet, especially on published work (personal or otherwise), have long been the source of a lot of promises, praise, and condemnation.? The idea that anyone can write what they think, be it an angry gut reaction or a well thought out respectful criticism, or of course the occasional praise… it can all be a part of what you see on the site and what the content producer has put out there.? Its arguably the key ingredient of what makes a blog special. Arguably the future of this internet we’re all a part of.? Despite many sites out there deciding against comments or having to turn them off eventually do to some extreme or minor problem that could relate to harassment, what some people call hate speech, or just general irritance…. still a huge amount of sites, this one included, have managed to chug on.. comments and all.? Moreover I often think that my comments section is a good place, a mostly open and welcoming space where you can add to, comment on, or argue with something I’ve said or done.? Some just use it to say hello or make me laugh… sometimes a very uplifting occurrence.? Sometimes though, I’m bothered by a comment, by disrespect, or even by something I said without thinking something through.? Still.. the comments section rolls on.

This was the topic on the most recent episode of On the Media (3rd segment in the show), questioning what good comments have done news sites and blogs, versus what difficulties they may have brought. As usual I could have though of some better voices to have included in this segment. Especially net natives and freedom fighters like my friend Tony Pierce of the LA Times and the Busblog, who could have told them the beauty and occasional horror of the comments section. I would have also told them to talk to my dear Bitch Phd, another seasoned veteran who has (what I would call) a very special relationship with a VERY active comments section.

I digress, I do recommend the latest edition of OTM specifically for the focus on comments.? Even beloved/behated NPR voice Ira Glass tells of his experience.

Maybe you have your own take on news sites or blogs and how they manage comments.? Or perhaps, about the comments on my site.? If so, you know what to do…

Darfur Awareness Followup

Staying with the issue of Darfur, on the heels of yesterday’s podcast, I noticed an interesting study on public opinion of the Darfur situation in the US, published on the PEW center’s site. (love PEW center because I have the patience and the time to read through their numbers and reports)

My attention was particularly sparked by the survey of how the public feels the media is covering the crisis in Darfur as compared to Iraq or Iran. As you can see in this image, not only do 49% feel it receives too little coverage, but if you look at the “don’t know” category.. 14% don’t know. Which makes me wonder if they really don’t know anything on the topic, which is still very possible considering the lack of coverage, or if they simply don’t care.. which is unfortunately also possible.

One statistic that represents exactly why I do the work that I do on this blog: 75% of those who had heard a lot about the situation believed that the US had a responsibility to take action to stop the genocide. The less that people had heard about Darfur the more they didn’t want the US to do anything.

Might sound simple enough, but for me it reminds me of an important relationship – the more you hear about a topic, learn about it, talk about it, argue about it; the greater the chance you will get involved and be concerned.