Slashdot Mirror
Communication Making The World Less Tolerant
angkor writes "Interesting NY Times magazine article with a contrarian viewpoint: "In some ways, global satellite TV and Internet access have actually made the world a less understanding, less tolerant place." " Reg. required blah blah - but the point the author makes is interesting - what if all the hubbaloo about connecting people via the Internet makes us less likely to like each other?
"global satellite TV and Internet access have actually made the world a less understanding, less tolerant place." - only because by the time people stop doing one of these activities they're either
1. annoyed
2. suffering from a short attention span
or both!
Video Game cheats, hints a
every since I started spending long hours on the internet I've become less tolerant of real people.
I find that if I spend a day programming or what not then I'm great with people. But as soon as I start surfing the net and chatting with people I become way less tolerant of everybody.
I think it has to do with how long it takes to communicate a thought. Online you see the entire thought in one shot, whereas in person it takes time to hear the whole conversation. Basically a speed difference. The speed is the main difference.
In terms of tolerating people of other ethnicities I notice no difference, in fact I'm more likely to talk to people within my own group of online g33k friends in real life. We talk fast and keep it short.
I think this bodes well not unless I cut down on my internet time. Perhaps all my fragging is gonna finally backfire.
internet like monkeys'
On a larger scale you also become aware of something which cannot be tolerated in other parts of the world. Eg. Faked elections, no human rights, unbalanced distribution on wealth, etc.
My conclusion is that the "global village" are making us more tolerant. But also more aware. And the media likes head lines like "Election scam in Albonia" instead of "Germans are just like us!"
I'd say there is an increased risk of world propaganda with the net, also taking in account that there are now for the first time world spanning media companies like CNN, which hasnt been there before. I think it might come down to information globalisation, there are no distributed reactions, it risks pretty much to strive either all one way or the other. Saying that by default we hate each other more is a bit too much stereotypist for my taste.
A point to consider is that when there weren't so many selections to news and information outlets, news and information outlets had to be more middle of the road. Now, with so many to choose from, it is more likely that you will get your news from a site (or station) that is skewed to your perceptions of the world.
Instead of being confronted with opinions contrary to those with which you percieve the world, you can be safely confronted with the spin about the world that you already agree with.
Can 'the world be brought together' if everybody is reinforcing their own preconceptions about everyone else? Most likely not.
This is the same problem with the media; we are always seeing the culture at it's worst or only seeing the worst parts of it's culture. You don't see the bakers, clerks, teachers, nurses, doctors, scientists of a culture you see it's brutal armies and tyrannical leaders, it's terrorists and suicide bombers.
This is the real source of intolerance -- you never see anything from the bulk of foreign cultures that are worth saving.
Here in Australia, we in High School (senior year) had a term topic called "Representations of Truth" which basically drilled into us a distrust of everything the media says. Apparently, courses like this come up about every ten years or so but, usually, they're gone in a year or two. Someone doesn't like it.
IMHO, the article's right. The big problem is the one-sidedness of the media. The Egyptian youth only see pictures glorifying suicide bombers, while we only see pictures of barbarians who dared to attack the West, the torchbearer of everything that is good and just in the world </sarcasm>.
The people who said global media would bring peace weren't wrong. We just *don't have* a global media. We have two separate propaganda machines, one on the Islamic side (or wherever) and one on our side. We need full, unbiased reporting, not the fear and hate mongering that has filled our screens since September 11. The media shapes public opinion. Most people will believe what they're told to believe.
But then again, I'm just a kid. What would I know?
I agree with you wholeheartedly about how this article seems to forget that the information age is very young, and that centuries-old conflicts will not change overnight.
There's a second problem I've always wondered about, though (I almost did a research study on it during the beginning of graduate school): people often choose the media they monitor. The problem with this in terms of opening communications and what not is that people will largely listen to what they want to hear. Media anywhere is often a matter of preaching to the choir rather than preaching to the unconverted, so to speak.
I'm all for more media, more communication, more openness. The problem is that most, if not many people, use the internet, TV, etc. to reinforce their own views rather than to seek out alternative perspectives. When you click on a link, it's because you're interested. And more often than not we are interested in what is similar to us.
For example, I browse the web all the time. But what do you think I read? Conservative ezines? No, at least not relatively speaking--I go to Salon, Slashdot, The New Republic, Utne Reader, etc.
I think there's always trickle-over of alternative viewpoints if the media source is trying to cater to a heterogeneous enough audience with multiple topics, and has a goal of being representative. But I think that's the exception rather than the rule.
Anyway, I think part of the problem is that these things won't go away overnight. I do think, contrary to the article, we've become much more aware of alternative viewpoints overall. But I think many of our viewpoints are also just reinforced in seeking out media. I think that's got to change, probably by educating consumers.
I think tolerance is a constant. I think the thing that changes is awareness. As we become more aware of other cultures we also become aware of the flaws in those cultures. Through seeing the flaws in other cultures one hopes that we see the same flaws within our own. Often that awareness causes loathing of the negative behavior and through transference we cast off our anger toward the other culture instead of rectifying the flaw in our own.
People do this all the time. Strong headed people dislike other strong headed people, models dislike other models, fat people dislike other fat people, selfish people see other selfish people as "MORE" selfish. It's a coping mechanism to avoid addressing the problems with oneself.
As we become more aware of what we are doing the "appearance of intolerance" will decrease.
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
This article is way off. Beware of any editorialist's thesis when it begins, "In somy ways..."
Globalized instant communication is a wonderful thing. It does not make us like one another less. The truth is, we barely know one another.
I remember talking to a Chinese person and her saying, "You Americans really think we're so utterly suppressed over here. I love China." And I remember talking to a person from the Middle East (maybe Turkey?). He said, "I really thought you would be a lot more arrogant, but you aren't at all."
After that, we struck up a conversation about stereotypes we have of one another's countries (of course he had a lot more of America than I did of Turkey). So I'm not a rich, imposing, arrogant Cowboy after all! Good to know.
On the other hand, I once talked to a Palestinian who was so angry I could barely have a conversation with him. He wanted me dead, seriously. And I got angry too.. REAL angry. Of course, I believe this to be a special incident due to our nation's rather unbalanced policy over there.. (in my opinion, don't flame me..) so I don't fault him for it.
You can't stop globalization, and it simply shouldn't be stopped. I think we need to talk more, rather than less.
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
I remember hearing on NPR last year that the rise of the internet and the ease with which researchers and scientists can now share their data and results had led to less diversity in scientific ideas.
It used to be that people all over would do the same thing in their own way, oblivious to how others were doing it.
Now, with the internet, people discovered one promising way of doing something and then everyone does it that way instead of continuing to pursue multiple paths.
A definite double-edged sword in this case, since it can lead to the avoidance of wasted time and resources on lousy research, but it can also stifle creativity.
This is the NFL, which stands for "Not For Long" if you keep making those bulls*** calls.
There is a large arugment amoung sociologists about what the exact outcome of globalization will be. To simplify, those who look at the process from a modernist perspective believe that globalization will create one monoculture because it leads to efficiency. Those with a more postmodern approach say that globalization will actually work to make new kinds of cultures and increase cultural diversity. In fact, the "geek" culture can be seen as a new kind of culture that has appeared as a resulut of technologies such as the Internet.
If you really want to get the skinny on globalization, you should go find some good academic sociology journals that address the issue. NYT certainly can't go into any depth on such a complex subject.
<a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>
What the media provide is superficial familiarity -- images without context, indignation without remedy. The problem isn't just the content of the media, but the fact that while images become international, people's lives remain parochial
The author is (I think) talking about passive media here: sattelite broadcasts and CNN.com. The real value of an interconnected globe will only be realized when individuals worldwide are engaged in creating the media discourse, not merely consuming it.
As has already been noted the current "golbal media" is more like a series of biased propaganda machines with a global scope than anything else. I can read kavkaz.org and get a different viewpoint from CNN.com, but I don't know where I can log into a chat room and actually talk with a real person "over there".
It goes all the way back to the cluetrain: until the people are interconnecting and building the discourse with their own hearts and minds and stories, we will never create a social fabric that can resist being torn by demogaguery, be it from facistic leaders or bias news outlets.
Hopefully this interconnection is already happening, but it's going to take time. We (America/The West) are fairly settled into our consumer culture mode. Unless we really decide to take it upon ourselves to become citizens of our own nation and the world, we're not even going to be able to approach the utopian ideal of a global community.
Howard Dean for president
In my opinion, the worst thing about television news is that it is so instant and that a lot of it is American-based. I am constantly telling my non-Western (i.e. Saudi, Iraqi, etc.) friends to not trust television news. It is very important to supplement what you see on television with other outlets (major newspapers, disinterested sources, etc.). It is also very important to train yourself to recognize logical fallacies and the like. Classes on critical thinking are pretty helpful.
Joseph Kalange, Boise, ID, USA