In a world of social media, forming constant opinions is one’s salary to recognition. Unless an individual reaches fame online through funny cat videos or memes, the main way to break through the external tweeting is to hold an opinion on the latest news of the day. The more controversial, the more of a hot take, the better.
Little time has been taken to appreciate the damaging effects this can have. Of course, fake news has been explored, which isn’t - and I’m talking to you President Trump - news we don’t like but news that is factually wrong. Such is the desire to reach fame online that truth goes out the window. Regulation is discussed but never properly enforced, such is our nostalgia towards internet freedom as a way of humans communicating. It was never properly considered that the internet should shape our opinions, even voting intentions, in the same way as newspapers and television had historically. Yet this has been proven to be the case once again. We are only five days until 2020 and there is already talk of an imminent Third World War. Why? Because of America under President Trump ordering a targeted drone strike that killed Qassem Suleimani, a senior military commander in Iran. Retaliation is expected with severe consequences. I have no idea whether there will be a Third World War. I hadn’t heard of this individual before his death, know little of Iranian politics and the Middle East in general. This can’t be the case for me alone. There must be others who, while on the surface can see that Suleimani was a morally repellent individual, have little understanding around the context of his killing. This doubt about whether President Trump took the right decision and how this crisis will play out directly opposes the rules of social media. On twitter especially, holding an opinion on the matter, knowing which side of the line to stand and understanding international security strategy appears the norm. We are all suddenly military commanders, advisers to the President, aware of his grand strategy and how to respond, whatever happens. We are all suddenly experts on Iranian domestic policy, including every one of their commanders and how they will deal with this American attack. Except, obviously, this is not the case. While I certainly try to read comprehensive news stories that will provide an overview of current events, that is no compensation for years of detailed knowledge on the Middle East, Trump’s America and the political direction facing the world. While I religiously access the BBC and Guardian for my news (yes, leave your metropolitan liberal elite snowflake remarks in the comments!), I know they cannot make up for detailed research and knowledge - through books, films and other cultural mediums - on the moral and geopolitical consequences of recent events. In other words, I am uncertain about what the answer is. I have doubt about what I think and what the correct way forward should be. But this doesn’t fill a tweet, newspaper column, panel show that has its foundations built around opinion. It is a required part of such genres that individuals with scant knowledge on the subject immediately take a line, hold a position that they can just about defend. Indeed, the opinion pages of newspapers (which, I must say, contain some truly excellent writers), are built around intelligent people forming a view on the world’s events and articulating it to the rest of us. Columnists are broad brush individuals who must turn their hand to whatever the news agenda sparks. Whether a domestic or foreign policy issue, political or unrelated, this will always be the case. However, it is this moment of such world volatility - a death being compared to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914 - that I believe nuance is required. All of us have a duty to be honest about where we come from. Are our opinions, translated rapidly into tweets, based on years of studying the Middle East, international law and foreign policy relations? Or are they simply based on a news source, presuming it is a reliable one, which we twist to fit our pre-conceived belief about the world? I am proud to not hold the answer to this problem. It is evidently a huge one and a responsibility I wouldn’t be able to meet. Doubt, nuance and uncertainty are nothing to be ashamed of. To be doubtful is to have a mind that’s open, independence and honest. Instead of a fixed view that won’t even shift as events do, being uncertain allows someone to look at a situation more broadly before coming to a view. Doubt and uncertainty must be distinguished from ignorance and indecisiveness. Ignorance is not knowing what the problem is and not wanting to learn more. Doubt is having a broad awareness of the problem, being unsure of the answer and wanting to find out more. Indecisiveness is the failure to make a decision for fear of accountability should it be incorrect. Uncertainty is a desire to not rush to conclusions until evidence has been assessed. To put one’s hands up and say ‘I don’t know’ can be seen as a weakness. It certainly shouldn’t be. We cannot know everything in the world, there is far too much knowledge and information for our brain to process. However, if a overview of a news story sparks a deeper interest, it is possible to turn one’s lack of knowledge into a greater awareness of world events. Life is full of making decisions and holding opinions about the world. That is inevitable and should be welcomed. Part of our human ingenuity is to not inevitably conform to the pre-existing social order. It is through taking a stance - and therefore, an opinion - against injustice, for example, that the world changes and societies transform. However, twitter alone shouldn’t be the place to disclose and obtain information about society. No 280 character hot take makes up for a detailed, nuanced and carefully considered book. That I have no doubt about.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author:Noah enjoys writing a blog and drinking tea Archives
September 2022
Categories
All
|