"And it seems to us now the most dangerous tendency in the world is the desire to believe a rumor rather than to pin down a fact."
- John Steinbeck, A Russian Journal
I've been busily settling into DC (and taking hundreds of photographs of my explorations that have barely made it off the camera, let alone been edited or posted for public perusal), so my writing has slipped some. My reading hasn't, though. Having finally finished The Borgias - just in time to realize that Showtime has a show about their corrupt exploits - I turned to one of my favorites, John Steinbeck. I felt the need to move from Papal history to another page in history, another part of the world. It may also have been the top book on the "to read" pile next to my bed, and it was fortuitous. Around the fifth page, this quote so caught my attention that I emailed myself to make sure I remembered it.
A little context: John Steinbeck travelled to the Soviet Union with his friend, photographer Robert Capa, in the late 1940s under the sponsorship of the cultural commission Voks. Their objective? To tell the truth. When asked what the truth was, they answered that that question was what they meant to answer. Perhaps the Russians were confused, perhaps they thought this an excellent opportunity to influence a well-known American writer, perhaps they took it at face-value, but they (eventually) allowed Steinbeck and Capa into the country. Behind Stalin's Iron Curtain, the two found a small expatriate community of newspapermen and embassy workers, none of whom were allowed to travel outside of Moscow and nearly all of whom were relegated to reporting on the Kremlin's press releases. As they described it, Moscow itself was a serious city, one whose people were diligent and hard-working and thoughtful but not particularly happy. When they left the city, though, they found the laughing, dancing, joking farmers and factory workers that could exist nearly anywhere in the world. Their rumors were that the Soviet people were miserable under Communism, or dangerous, or poor, or entirely convinced that the Americans ought to be bombed to smithereens because of their opposing political views. Their observed facts were that the Soviets were no different than the Americans - friendly and generous, curious but with a lack of solid information on each others' opinions and lives.
But all of this had not yet been laid out. It might have been what Steinbeck meant when he wrote it, but it wasn't what caught my attention. So what did?
Six months ago, there wasn't much revolution in the world's streets. Since then? Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, Oman, Lebanon, Sudan (in a more peaceful vote to divide into North and South), Ivory Coast, and Jordan have all seen mass protests and sometimes violent crackdowns. Presidents have refused to leave office. Presidents have been forced to flee. International coalitions have placed first diplomatic and then military pressure on leaders that refuse to acknowledge the demands of their people. I've been closely following the stories of the Arab Spring (and the concurrent, non-Arab conflicts), thinking that the media outlets - who create the first drafts of history - have oversimplified much of what's been happening.
I think American media outlets often oversimplify political thinking in an attempt to condense it to a soundbite. It's irresponsible and inaccurate. If one walked around Tahrir Square and talked to one hundred people, there would be one hundred or more reasons for being there. These reasons may not all be in English. The American news outlet that takes the few opinions expressed in perfect English and extrapolates a single soundbite to feed to the American public does us all a disservice. Remember all those reports of pro-Mubarek counter-protesters that turned out to be paid employees of the government? Twitter and facebook may have gather a critical mass to start the movement in Egypt - although dissatisfaction and outrage certainly spilled over from Tunisia - but if you take your facts directly from American media, these social networks were the primary reason there were political protests at all. How quickly we forget that Egypt pulled the Internet's plug on over 90% of its citizens...and those citizens STILL made it to Tahrir Square. Social networks were merely a tool - a tool that both sides were using. The few opinions captured in the soundbites may be outliers or even lies.
I am a trusting person in general and need to "turn on a switch" in order to apply skeptical eyes and critical thought to information presented to me. Media needs to do the same thing, especially in such dangerous and momentous times as these. Indeed, as Steinbeck said, it is the most dangerous thing in the world to believe the rumors instead of pinning down the facts of the matter.
Referenced in this post:
A Russian Journal by John Steinbeck and Robert Capa, illustrated by Robert Capa
The Borgias and Their Enemies 1431-1519 by Christopher Hibbert
