The summer of watching helplessly: how to make sense of the world's madness

Perhaps the American political cartoonist Tom Tomorrow said it best when he tweeted, “This has basically been the Summer of Watching Helplessly.”

Amplified by our newfound sources of 24/7 news, this summer’s cluster of global disasters will have left many feeling both upset and overwhelmed. The roll-call of carnage and political turmoil is familiar to all by now: Ukraine. Gaza. Ebola. The rise of the Islamic State…

Processing and making sense of some of these crises is difficult enough at the best of times. Intrinsically they tend to be deep-rooted and messy conflicts; picking out ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’ is near impossible, and understanding the historical context of every individual crisis is also challenging. Faced with this onslaught of hard-to-ignore tragedy and bloodshed, it’s perhaps understandable that many succumb to apathy. But indifference doesn’t necessarily mean peace of mind, and what about those of us who still care, but are too dazzled by the sudden variety of horror on display, and the myriad media it can be transmitted on?

Beware the medium, mind the message

Chair of Arts Education at the University of Dundee, Scotland, John Baldacchino, believes that instead of first worrying about the content of the news, we should direct our critical gaze towards how it comes to us in the first place.

“I do wonder whether we are missing a more important point here, in that we seem to assume that somehow, processing the news comes ‘naturally’, whereas we know, the “news” is made up of a series of constructs that are mediated (and mediatized), while at the same time we are given the impression – or rather the illusion – of immediacy.”

Describing most of the news we receive as being “already processed” by the time we get it – i.e., shaped by various external interests and agendas – Baldacchino says that not being given the space and time to put all the information we receive into context is a key problem.

“News is presented in a way that we are supposed to consume it as information, when in effect we are not even given the time to digest the previous lot that we just had in the morning, or a few hours before.”

Dominican Friar Fr Mark Montebello also urges caution when considering news sources.

“Some major news agencies pick and choose whatever they like, mostly according to hidden political agendas,” he says, adding that people should bear in mind that “what is presented to them might not necessarily be the only stories worth telling, not the most important or significant, and not portrayed objectively”.

Rev. Charo Camilleri, lecturer in Moral Theology at the University of Malta, also believes that the media cannot be taken at face value.

“So it is important to keep following as much as possible news coming from mainstream press and news agents, and perhaps follow more than one perspective to form an opinion.”

Given that the internet – including social media – now exists directly alongside more traditional methods of disseminating news, it’s hardly surprising that it has also succeeded in altering the media landscape at large. Perhaps the use of social media like Twitter during the Arab Spring remains the most iconic – and dramatic – example of the way the internet can influence real life events: a telling example of how it’s successfully up-ending traditional media, at least in terms of immediacy and viral dissemination.

But author Immanuel Mifsud is sceptical about whether the internet can serve as a more direct and unfiltered source of news. Far from taking care of biases that already exist in traditional media, the internet has in fact, “paved the way to a more systematic, and easier to produce, programme of deceit”.

“Technology, not just the internet, has made deception a much easier and effortless undertaking. Pictures are photoshopped, videos are edited. And the internet has become an oracle, a speakers’ corner where anyone can say anything they like, and where many simply believe what is written or shown because ‘it was on the internet’,” Mifsud says.

While acknowledging that an entirely neutral media would be a utopian dream, Mifsud claims that “deceit is deplorable”.

“Just to give a couple of examples: does anyone not pertaining to the ruling elite(s) know what happened exactly to the MH17 aircraft? Anyone knows what is really happening in Ukraine, who’s shooting at whom? Of course, one can choose to take sides and stick to what their side says. But for those who think, believing something or someone has become extremely difficult. At least, this is my case.”

Apart from an unfortunate propensity to spread half-truths (if not all-out misinformation) by dint of the fact that it isn’t as privy to gate-keeping as traditional media, the internet also enables people to trade in a constant barrage of graphic imagery – as exemplified by the chilling parade of Muammar Gaddafi’s corpse back in 2011.

Mediterranean International Relations Analyst Prof. Stephen Calleya says that while “in the immediate term such images generate perceptions of shock,” if repeated on a regular basis over a period of time, “they could also result in us becoming more desensitized to such atrocities”.

Calleya concludes that, “this would have far reaching consequences on how future generations view tragedies”.

Referring in particular to the horrific – and now viral – public executions of journalists by members of the Islamic State, Charlo Camilleri compares the online landscape to a digital version of “the public state”.

“The public square where executions took place in the presence of locals, to instil fear, warn and subdue, has now been expanded. The world is now the public square and the witnesses are not the few people present at executions but millions of viewers and followers.”

Montebello, on the other hand, does not see the internet as a troubling development on this count, claiming that, on the contrary, “the internet (when free) offers alternative sources which are otherwise unavailable or inaccessible. The free internet is a blessing”.

Rather than vilifying the internet, Baldacchino suggests that the problem is a deep-rooted one. In fact, he suggests, it could all be traced back to our system of education, which encourages us to accumulate “facts” without processing their underlying meaning and overall context.

“However this is not easy, given the way education is a processing of “facts” that are then tested in assessed structures for which we are supposed to be trained to say the ‘right’ answer, or else we ‘fail’. If we have grown to digest facts by means of a fallacy of “ability” foisted on us from the tender age of three, or as soon as we are schooled, I cannot imagine how we can begin to break that habit and process what has already been processed for us by the so called ‘knowledge industry’,” Baldacchino says.  

What to do?

Mifsud is resigned about the – perhaps inevitable – impulse towards apathy that such a ceaseless torrent of bad news can inspire. 

“I almost come to the conclusion that one cannot blame people for falling into apathy, because the stress all this creates, sooner or later, becomes simply unbearable. There are too many lies, too many contradictions, too many paradoxes,” Mifsud says.

However, Calleya suggests that a clear priority should serve to guide our attention.

“In a world of continuous news updates the main priority one should focus on is the loss of life. All other issues come second.

“The priority that deserves most attention is that where human beings are losing their life. Whether it is due to a lack of basic nutrition, lack of natural resources, conflict, terrorism, or a tragedy, the loss of life is the main issue one should focus on in the deluge of news. The same questions should always be asked: ‘Why has this happened?’, and: ‘Could it have been prevented?’” Calleya says.

Camilleri claims that the first step towards dealing with political apathy on a local level is to “realise that we are part of a world out there. Sometimes I wonder whether we really are aware of this fact…”