Is there no end to my ignorance?

magicbastarder

One of the most terrifying lessons I have learned is that, by and large, grown-ups don't really know what they are doing. As a schoolkid, I mistook my teachers for all-knowing, infallible beings protected by an invisible forcefield of adulthood. Even as I grew older, left school, became a student, left polytechnic and became a fledgling adult myself, I laboured under the delusion that people in positions of authority were inherently more "adult" than I was - that they possessed some kind of on-board mental computer that guided them towards making the right decision, even if I didn't always agree with it.

My overdue epiphany finally arrived in my mid-20s, at a barbecue, when I found myself talking to a girl the same age as me who was a schoolteacher, and she described how, much of the time, she was teaching the kids things she had only read the week before in the textbook. As long as she stayed one chapter ahead, she was fine. At first I was genuinely surprised; I had thought all that knowledge was stored in their heads. Then it got worse.

I met a doctor, not much older than myself, who was a) drunk and b) pretty stupid. I realised that in terms of age, I had caught up with the "adults", and was horrified to learn they were all just as ham-fisted as me. At least the young ones were. The older generation surely had a better handle on things, I reasoned. They had to, or the world would slide into chaos. Then I passed 30 and realised I still didn't have a clue what was going on. Now I'm 36, and if there is one thing I do know, it's that I still don't know that much. No one does. Everybody's winging it. Everything is improvised.

And the world never "slides into chaos" - it's perpetually chaotic because all of us, from beggars to emperors, are crashing around trying to make the best of an unpredictable universe. We are little more than walking mistake generators. Dumb animals, essentially. Things would be just as messy if hens ruled the world. This is true, and it's scary. But also sort of glorious.

Consider that an extended caveat for the following humiliating confession: I don't understand the news. Not entirely. Let me explain: I watch and read the news, not obsessively, but probably often enough to be doing my bit as a concerned citizen. But I can't keep up with it. I follow it, but I don't always truly follow it, if you see what I mean.

Entertainment news aside, every story comes with a complex back story consisting of a million tiny events, of countless shades of right and wrong, of mistake piled upon mistake, successes and failures, injustices and struggles. It's like trying to follow the plot of the most complicated and detailed soap opera ever made, one that was running for centuries before you started tuning in. To truly understand a major news story often requires real effort - more than many people are willing to give - which is why most of us know more about celebrities than, say, the Israel-Palestine situation.

I think people who work in hard news often forget this. They are submerged in it. They know the cast, they have followed the storylines and they can't help assuming their readers or viewers have similar knowledge. In reality, most people probably missed the crucial, earlier episodes, and subsequently can't quite relate to the story. We can see it's important - it's the news! - but we don't always feel its importance. If more of us did, there would probably be open revolt - or at least more revolt, more often.

In my mid-20s I wrote for videogames magazines. I was proud of my work. It was just an excuse to write jokes really, and it was great fun. But while videogame fans seemed to like what I did, it was baffling to the average Joe: peppered with terminology about polygon counts and frame rates, and gags that referenced other, older games. To the casual observer, it was a minefield of unfamiliar acronyms.

This is fine for specialist writing but it alienates the outsider. A lot of news coverage is specialist writing. It's news written for news fans. And the stuff that isn't seems to consist of stories about Sienna Miller's arse, which is easy to follow because, well, there's not much to it. Because she is so thin.

I can't help thinking that what we need now, perhaps more than ever, is a populist and accessible Dummies' Guide to Now. The BBC News website does this brilliantly, with regular bite-sized primers attached to major stories, which attempt to explain the back story to newcomers clearly and concisely, without being patronising or stupid. It has simple titles such as "Who is Scooter Libby?", and is a rare oasis of clarity. I would like to see it launch some kind of 24-hour "news companion" channel, or red-button service, that does the same thing on TV: a rolling fill-in-the-blanks service that helps you get up to speed. A catch-up service for reality, if you like. Not dumbed-down news, but clear information - something that often gets lost in the 24-hour scramble of breaking developments and updated headlines.

Maybe it's just me who craves that. Maybe I'm thick. Maybe the rest of you understand everything and I'm alone in my ignorance. But I doubt it. I think the vast majority of us are winging it, at least 18 chapters behind in the textbook and secretly praying no one else will notice. If we all knew more, we would do more to lend a hand, instead of shrugging and hoping the news might some day go away or submerging ourselves in comforting trivia. Don't just tell us what is important. We might not have paid attention earlier. Toss us a bone. Tell us why.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2042888,00.html

flogen

Please edit the post to include only a synopsis of the piece (with a link to the rest) and add a comment of your own afterwards.

J.S. Pill

magicbastarder wrote:

What you said...

I think we should confine this thread to the second half of your post as this is a news and media thread. First thing I'll say is that you've opened a massive can of worms. Can any of us really follow 'the news'? As you said, each news story has a complex history and consists of millions of smaller events. As such we have to simply accept that our understanding of events is going to be incomplete at best and utterly deluded at worst (unless we are dustinguished scholars on the subject in question or if we have enormous amounts of time on our hands).

Regarding your point about the chaoitic nature of human activities - If most consumers of news can only expect to have a vague and partial 'understanding' of the world around them there's always going to be a need to reduce and simplify. What we really need to look out for when reading news and current affairs is attempts to put some kind of simplistic narrative over something infinately more complex e.g. war on terror; There Is No Alternative. etc.

When we talk about 'the news' we are often talking merely about the events that happen to make it on to the agenda any given day. Its concievable then that there are events happening in the world that we aren't going to even hear about. So if we're feeling a bit guilty about not fully understanding events in Burma then you have to question this guilt considering that you probably won't even have an opportunity to see whats going on in the Congo.

I'm usually very selevtive about what news events i follow. As a general rule I never read anything about Northern Ireland, the health service, european domestic politics (I'm only interested insofar as they relate to the EU) - there are numerous other areas I simply don't give a sh1t about. I prefer to have a reasonably solid understanding of a few areas rather than a fragmented understanding of many. I would often read news stories about areas I don't know much about but thats usually just to pass the time or to have something to talk about in the pub (hmmm, bond markets strong in finland, world's fattest man implodes - how interesting).

I wouldn't loose any sleep over 'not knowing whats going on' in the world. Our rationality is bounded, our comprehension limited and our memories' pourous.
Here on this forum we love pouring over how the news is presented as distinct from its content (for that go to the politics forum). News is invariably loaded with assumptions; it massages biggoted opinions and props up the establishment. Feel free to contribute an opinion, however subjective, coz thats whats its all about.

[PS the BBC is indeed excellent for getting background information on news subjects. I really like the way they put the topics in very simple language like 'so what are Hamas so pissed about'. Another thing you might notice about BBC news is their 'most read' tab. Tellingly, the most read stories are invariably the most sensational (today's section lists 'semi-identical twins discovered' and 'dog sized toad found in Australia' - having said that, the Iran/british navy affair is today's most popular story)]

J.S. Pill

Great, I just spent the last 20 minutes writing a response to a post I thought was original, Only after clicking on the link did I realise it realise that it was a copy and paste job of something from the stinking guardian (I thought it was original at first as it read like the usual boards.ie soapbox peice).

F**k it, now i feel like an idiot - well if anyone wants to comment on my soapbox peice fell free.

flogen

Don't worry about it JS - the thread is now being locked because the OP failed to edit and add a comment, as required by the charter (a rule which exists largely to avoid the hassle you've now experienced).