Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Communication Making The World Less Tolerant 326

Posted by Hemos from the devil's-advocate-flame-war dept.
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?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Communication Making The World Less Tolerant More

Communication Making The World Less Tolerant

Comments Filter:

  • In a way, that does make sense (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fidget42 ( 538823 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @09:11AM (#3382859)
    In some small way, knowing about a culture allows some of the more unsavory types to point out that bad things and say "See, they are ALL bastards! Look at what they do!" I am always amazed at how quickly people will forget the good and look at the bad.
    • I am always amazed at how quickly people will forget the good and look at the bad.

      Unfortunately, many people only see what their personal devils and demons tell them to see. And some people like their demons, keeping them well fed.

      I am sure anyone here could come up with at least one example of this.

      yep, it is demons, not daemons [vt.edu], but that works as well. daemons of the mind. Socrates and all.

  • TV and the Internet (Score:4, Interesting)

    by 56ker ( 566853 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @09:14AM (#3382867) Homepage Journal
    "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!

    • suffering

      I'm sorry. What was that? I missed it.

      On a more serious note, the 'less understanding' comment makes a bit of sense because you can now find news and entertainment that fits with your worldview, and you no longer have to confront alternate views about, well, anything.

  • I've wondered this many times about how the media affects people and how instant media changes the dynamics. I remember the repeated instant images on Spetember 11th and the sheer hysteria that has occurred.

    Having taken several courses on film and media, I know that all media is filtered. While we seem to find that the news is objective, we fail to understand that instant news is as subjective as possible, as instant coverage of an even often presents only one side to the story.

    The sad thing is that our education systems don't teach us to question the news. I remember being in my social studies class and we read the the news and treated it like it was all the facts.

    I think sites like Alternet [alternet.org] are a great counter-culture to mass media. People need to learn to look at several news sources, as well as read up on the background behind the stories.

    Perhaps in the United States, a country that seems to be involved all over the world, more emphasis should be places on world history and world cultures in education.

    • Education is the key (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ZigMonty ( 524212 ) <slashdot@@@zigmonty...postinbox...com> on Sunday April 21, 2002 @09:55AM (#3382989)

      The sad thing is that our education systems don't teach us to question the news. I remember being in my social studies class and we read the the news and treated it like it was all the facts.

      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?

      • Re:Education is the key (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        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.

        The problem is that the people who view the media don't want unbiased reporting. See the whole flap about Reuters refusing to lable the Sep. 11 bombers "terrorists."

        Reuters has an interesting point. While to US citizens, they were "terrorists," to members of the Taliban and Al Queda, they were "freedom fighters". Maybe the T&AQ are wrong on this account, but lets move into Basque sepratists, the IRA, the Ulster liberation front, the Palestinians, the Israelis, the Venesualians, the Iranians, the Contras, the Viet cong, the Jura sepratists, the earth liberation front, PETA, the WTO protesters ... there's a lot of grey area we can get into.

        But we don't *want* unbiased news. We want news that reinforces our preconcieved notions. If it questions them, it makes us feel uncomfortable. -uncomfortable is BAD- So instead of admitting we might be wrong, let's blame the messanger!

        Not only does the media shape public opinion, public opinion shapes ther media.

    • Most people are just too ignorant to think for themselves, they have to be told how to think and what to believe in.

  • Openness leads to enlightenment (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pedrito ( 94783 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @09:15AM (#3382875)
    I have to disagree with the authors viewpoint. As the saying goes, Rome wasn't built in a day, and understanding among peoples who have disagreed for tens of centuries, isn't going to go away in a decade or two.

    I read a really interesting article in the Atlantic Monthly Journal, not too long ago. The article discussed how the Muslim world used to be the center of art and science in the world. They were way ahead of the rest of the world. So the article investigated why that changed.

    It made a very persuasive argument that openness and freedom of expression were the primary reasons. Though it may be a coincidence, I doubt it. At the time that the Muslim world was leading art and science, it was much freer and open than other nations of the world. As west became more open and allowed more freedoms, and the Muslim nations did the opposite, the balance began to change and has been that way to this day.

    Oppression doesn't work. It stifles growth and it breeds hate. Many of these countries are very successful of blaming the west for their lot in life. It's always easier to blame others for your problems than it is to look inside and see what YOU are doing wrong.

    Eventually, this open communication, however, will have a positive effect, I believe. I don't expect it to happen overnight, and there will always be periods of years or decades when there will be heated differences (as we're experiencing now), but the overall trend, as seen from the point of view of a century, I believe, in the end, will show that the world will have grown closer and more enlightened because of the growth of free communication.

    • Re:Openness leads to enlightenment (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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.
      • There's also something to be said in here about information overload - with the multitude of sources for news, it becomes difficult to filter out the noise. Of course, in that process we ignore some media sources that may be useful.

        I agree that the problem will not go away overnight. But I also think that it's going to just get worse. Technology has made communication so simple and fast that we can spout off opinion left and right, without stopping to think about it first.
    • I read a really interesting article in the Atlantic Monthly Journal, not too long ago. The article discussed how the Muslim world used to be the center of art and science in the world. They were way ahead of the rest of the world. So the article investigated why that changed. It made a very persuasive argument that openness and freedom of expression were the primary reasons. Though it may be a coincidence, I doubt it. At the time that the Muslim world was leading art and science, it was much freer and open than other nations of the world. As west became more open and allowed more freedoms, and the Muslim nations did the opposite, the balance began to change and has been that way to this day.
      At about the same time, both in the christian and in the muslim worlds, two philosophers (whose names elude me - I believe one was Aquino) mused on the relationship of science and religion.

      The christian one found that science will allow man to find god, whilst the muslim found that science will distance man from god.

      So, since that time, the christians pursued science whilst the muslims shunned it, and you see the result right now.

      • Blrrggghhh... gotta love these naive nursery tales. I seriously doubt that there's anything in the teachings of, I guess, Ibn Rushd (Averroes) or Thomas Aquinas to this effect. Anyway, Aquinas was following Averroes in most of his teaching, not opposing him, if that's who you were thinking of.

        A marginally less simplistic argument for the development of western democracy (advanced in the recent BBC Islam series) is that Europe had more conflicts than the Ottoman empire, and these were only resolvable through elaborate political structures (think modern N Ireland).

  • very true (Score:3, Interesting)

    by oo7tushar ( 311912 ) <slash.@tushar.cx> on Sunday April 21, 2002 @09:17AM (#3382879) Homepage
    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.

  • Less tolerant? Fantastic... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bazman ( 4849 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @09:18AM (#3382882) Journal
    Maybe we'll be less tolerant of racism, child abuse, slavery, dictators, monopolies, pollution...

    I just don't like the way the idea of tolerance has been appropriated as a good thing. Tolerance in itself has no values, its the things you choose to tolerate that do.

    Baz

    • Tolerance in itself has no values, its the things you choose to tolerate that do.

      No, it is more subtle than that. If we followed your logic then there is no value in tolerating Hinduism, only value IN Hinduism. So we should decide whether to tolerate it based on its intrinsic value. And we should determine its intrinsic value...how? Through a rational comparison to other religions and belief systems? That's not going to work! We need to work from a point of view where tolerance is the default mode and intolerance is only triggered by some form of injustice or harm. That's what people mean when they say: "tolerance is good."

    • Maybe we'll be less tolerant of racism, child abuse, slavery, dictators, monopolies, pollution... I just don't like the way the idea of tolerance has been appropriated as a good thing.
      You misunderstand. The ideal of tolerance describes an attitude towards individual people, not towards their ideas or their actions. A tolerant person hates racism, not racists. If she feels that religion is evil, she may give speeches, write a book, or use the babel fish to prove god does not exist but she will not despise priests. Tolerance can be carried to extremes without becoming evil. Nazis or terrorists are people too, and it is not a bad idea to treat them as human beings. This has nothing to do with softness, only with respect.

      Tolerance is the opposite of blind hate. There can't be too much of it in the world.

      Do you believe in death after life?

      • The problem with this view is that the whole world isn't subjective. It's not the nice little PC dream where everyone, regardless of conflicting views, can be right.

        While someone may have a reason for acting the way they do doesn't mean it's an excuse. I wouldn't tolerate a nazi, or any other racist, no matter how much I could understand what made them small minded to begin with.

        IMHO there's a big difference between what you do to yourself, or with consenting others, and what you try to force on people. Being tolerant of people with wacky ideas has nothing to do with most people's idea of tolerance, which involves letting idiots push you around.

        I'm okay with living in an world with flat-earthers, or the religious, even wacky religions. But I'm not okay with them pushing their beliefs on me. I'm not okay with them demanding the right to hurt people, and so on.

        If I was in a tolalitarian regime I'd want someone to come and get me out. I wouldn't want to have to then believe what the new people believed or anything, but if they were offering honest freedom, I'd prefer them over like-believing thugs. So I think we have the right to use "our" might to try to set things right. To give people the chance to peacefully and unobtrusively believe whatever wacky things they want.

        To do this though might involve crushing a few people who stand in the way. I'm well aware of the irony in the idea of peace through bloody war, but I think it's sometimes the only way. The powerful leaders won't step down voluntarily and where their will is directly contradictory to that of the people, I think they should be removed.

        This gets into the futility of modern war though, where we're willing to kill Sadamm's whole army to stop him, but we stop at the idea of sending in a "murder squad" to kill him.

        Anyways, this ventures a bit off the strict topic of tolerance/pushover, but I think context is needed for what might sound like very inflamatory opinions.

    • The problem of interpretation (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Pac ( 9516 ) <paulo...candido@@@gmail...com> on Sunday April 21, 2002 @12:56PM (#3383626)
      There is a problem when you send signals accross cultural borders, no matter how "neutral" those signals look: the interpretation of the said signals are always culture-dependent. So, unless you favour a unified global culture (and this is not only unattainable in any forseeable time-frame, but probably also undesired), an American-centric global media (and that is what we mostly have) will cause all sorts of problems.

      Let me pick some of your own examples to try to explain it.

      Child abuse is hot topic everywhere. But then one must define a child. An 8 years old is probably a child everywhere, but eleven year old girls are eligible for marriage in many parts of the world. Is this good? I don't think so, but that is the way things are in those regions.

      Dictatorships are usually violent and always inefficient in the mediun/long run. But the definiton of what is a dictatorship is much, much harder to achieve. Just last week the US government was pretty busy first denying then spinning all they could, their clear involvement in a coup the took down for 48 hours the democratically elected president of Venezuela. And during the brief "provisional" government, during which the coup leaders tried to dissolve the Congress and the Supreme Court, the US government and the IMF treated those guys as the de facto Venezuelan government. And the US press, CNN International in Spanish leading them, concurred all the way with the Washington view and with the provisional government view (to the point of hiding up to the last minute the mass protests that defeated the coup and brought back the elected president).

      Pollution is another problem very linked to eye of the beholder. After Bush's pullout from the Kyoto Treaty, we in the rest of the world find it very amusing when CNN talks about pollution problems elsewhere. Sounds pretty like "Do what I say, not what I do". Naturally, the same goes for a lot of things.

      So, there is a fundamental problem with US dominated news. And when a non-American media organization gains some proeminence, as Saudi Arabian Al-Jazeera network did during the months after September 11th, the reaction showed that Americans are not better than anyone when it comes to dealing with alternate points of view.
    • Maybe we'll be less tolerant of racism, child abuse, slavery, dictators, monopolies, pollution...

      I suspect that racism, child abuse, etc would fall into the category of the "600-1000 dead Nigerians" example given by the article. We'd hear about it one day, then it would be gone from the news the next, leaving us basically unchanged except for a broad sense of guilt. I believe the article called it "omnipotent guilt".

      In other words, no, a global media doesn't make us less tolerant of racism, child abuse, etc. We just get to hear about it briefly. That's the article's argument, I think.
    • Oh to hell with you. You are all wrong. I'm going to get in my Lexus now and run down Rambo. ;-)

      LOL

      You are right to say that tolerance is not a good in and of itself. It is context and conflicting values that make it a good. The real problem is that that American public is passive. We absorb sound bites and images without acting on them, often without even analyzing them for ourselves.

      Going back to the article, I have to question some of the things this reporter implies. I don't think Americans can cure the world's problems. I don't think that America should. Being a superpower is not the same as being god. What we should do is take the time to analyze the information being provided to us. Think for ourselves. That itself would be a miracle

      For example, how many people, even in this forum, have taken the time to understand why terrorists target us? In my opinion it's not just that we are relatively wealthy and self absorbed, as the article implies. If that were the case, it would be perfectly justifiable to throw up our hands and brand "terrorists" as pure evildoers. The thing is, they probably don't think of themselves as evil, they see themselves as just. How could that be?

      If you dig under the covers a little bit, you may start to question the US sponsored support of Israel, which has conducted a campaign of assasination an subjugation for decades. Or the fact that Sharon was responsible for brutal acts against non-jews, but still (or perhaps because of this) managed to rise to power, without condemnation from the US. The press glosses over the moral bankruptcy of the Jewish state, in my opinion. Add that to the list of things we should not tolerate.

      Of course I could be completely wrong, but at least I took the time to dig up the facts and I wasn't passive. I challenge you to divine your own truth, and tolerate mine even if it is different from yours.

  • Personally, I feel that tolerance has increased during the last 20 years partly due to international TV and the internet. Without international TV and internet I think if would be much easier to believe in the stereotypes of your neighbouring contries. So on a small scale it works.

    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!"

  • Timing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jwinterboy ( 567531 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @09:22AM (#3382895)
    The statement isn't too surprising, but I think a distinction needs to be made between short-term and long-term effects.

    In the years before the Internet, most of our communication was with people in conditions very similar to our own. Homogeneity breeds similar viewpoints.

    In the short-term, as many different cultures and types of people begin to interact, there will be a lot of conflict as different viewpoints come across. In the long-term, though, as these viewpoints are reconciled, either through debate, conflict, or even violence, the community of shared viewpoints becomes larger, and the differences in opinion should lessen ... in short, an evolution of viewpoints and cultures.

    The Internet should lead to a more unified world community, but certainly not in the short-term.

  • Maybe, maybe not (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Neckel ( 559587 )
    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.
    • Let's not ever make any generalized statements, for fear that someone might see it as "stereotypist."

      The article makes a good case. Third world nations see images of American wealth and self-absorption, and resent us for having what they don't. We see images of poverty and suffering from around the world. While we pity the sufferers and desire to help them, we also resent them for making us feel selfish and helpless, and for knocking our comfortable illusions out from under us. Even if we were on more level economic ground, we'd still have trouble understanding other cultures that are filtered into our living rooms, and news services compound the problem by focusing on the weird and salacious.

      I saw this in practice on the Today Show this morning. We were treated to the rantings of an unnamed Saudi "religious leader" who called Jews "the rats of the Earth," and prayed to God to kill them all. Then we were shown excerpts from Saudi educational materials which pointed out the warnings in the Koran against having Christian and Jewish friends.* Obviously, we're supposed to be repulsed and outraged by this. I've gotten the impression that such feelings are very prevalent throughout the Arab world, so it may not just be selective bias.

      But ask me what it did for my feelings of "tolerance."

      The situation in the Middle East has created a climate where moderate Arabs dare not speak out for fear of reprisals.

      * The Saudi representative claimed that the quotes were taken "out of context," though I can't imagine a context that would make them palatable.
      • Unless that particular Saudi "religious leader" was actually influential, it may not really be a fair point to make.

        However, it would be consistent with al-Riyadh's recent (retracted after criticism) two-part article on Jewish dietary customs with regards to Purim (notably, repeating the ol' canard that Jews celebrate the holidays by torturing and eating Gentile children), and the Saudi ambassador to the UK writing a poem that praised a recent Palestinian suicide bomber, writing that the gates of Heaven were opened to her. Oh, and the recent Saudi telethon that raised money for Palestinian "martyrs". And it's the same Saudi government that concurred with the OIC's decision to support the US war against terrorism... but also declaring that the Israelis were the only terrorists in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

  • News Sources (Score:2, Interesting)

    by orin ( 113079 )
    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 article highlights the differences between television and the Internet. TV is a passive medium: you don't usually have to think much (or at all) while watching it and you don't get the whole picture because you only see what the person (or organization) that is broadcasting wants you to see (or is able to show you).

    If you read about the same situation from credible sources on the Internet, it doesn't provide you instant gratification and it makes you think more (and hopefully investigate more) about the situation. You are more likely to get different viewpoints on the same topic depending on who wrote the information. While this is a longer process, I would argue it facilitates more tolerant view points from the person doing the reading and the research. Instead of taking up arms, the boy mentioned in the article may have decided to evoke change through peaceful means and become a future leader of his people instead of taking up arms and putting himself at risk of dying a senseless death.

    Television is a wonderful entertainer, but a poor educator. (Are you reading this, parents?)

  • Douglas Adams predicted this circa 1979 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Allen Varney ( 449382 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @09:24AM (#3382903) Homepage
    "Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation." (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Chapter 6)

    • Re:Douglas Adams predicted this circa 1979 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 56ker ( 566853 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @09:33AM (#3382932) Homepage Journal
      And Babelfish [altavista.com] does this for most web pages. As to the whole quote I reproduce it below:

      "The Babel fish," said The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy quietly, "is small, yellow and leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy not from its carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.

      "Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind\-bog\-gin\-gly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thin\-kers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.

      "The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

      "`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

      "`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.

      "`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

      "Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best- selling book Well That About Wraps It Up For God.

      "Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloddier wars than anything else in the history of creation."

  • My analogy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rakarnik ( 180132 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @09:25AM (#3382907) Homepage Journal

    I liken the world before the Internet to a group of really small colleges, and the world after the Internet to a huge university. People come to both with their own little prejudices and idiosyncrasies. If you find people who share your prejudices or idiosyncrasises (or do not conflict with them), you enjoy their company. We call such people friends.

    In a small college, it is really hard to find people you like, especially if you deviate from the mainstream in any way [as most of us do at Slashdot ;)]. OTOH, in a big university, you are more likely to find people who share your view of the world. It's not unusual to see very weird (read: different) groups spring up in a big university, whereas each individual would probably have been a loner in a small college.

    The kicker is that in a small college, you have 'x' number of people you don't like. That number is obviously magnified several-fold in a large university. It's up to you to decide how much of the world you want to make your playground, so you meet the people you want and are not so bothered by the people you don't really care for.

  • Ultimately it is the immense responsibility of the media to present a fair picture. This seldom happens. Usually, the media itself is polarized and has its own prejudices which are driven by what will bag a larger audience. I don't think therefore that communication is the root. A case in point is the portrayal of the US war on Afghanistan. Now I know, many of you out there might not agree, but I thought that CNN's coverage of the American offensive was not without fault. They chose to overlook various, "insignificant" acts of aggression and violence that I'm sure might have transpired on hapless, innocent civilians in Afghanistan.

    It is easy to accuse technology for our shortcomings, but that's not true.
    We must first learn to dissociate what we see on TV from what is really
    happening. So, the call is for depth and objectivity instead of reach.
  • The NY Times article seems to rely pretty heavily on the influence of CNN. From what I saw of the 9/11 thing, it looked to me like CNN was doing their damndest to drum up a war 24 hours after the attack. So, no surprise there.
    If we look at a truly interactive forum like /. or the newsgroups, I think the results don't fit as well with the NY Times editorial.
    Also, the premise that simply having more knowledge results in more tolerance is an ignorant and uneducated assumption at best. Simply knowing "the facts" isn't necessarily going to change anybody's thinking or behaviors. If this naive assumption were true, there would probably be more vegetarians than there are today.
    However, human interaction and communication is what we, as humans, are all about and it's not as though tolerance is the yardstick by which we judge whether that is the right thing. So even if someone came up with impressively persuasive statistical evidence that communications technologies like newsgroups or /. were leading to intolerance, it would be little more than trivia as far as I'm concerned.
    In the case of this editorial though, I don't think the examples are particularly persuasive.

  • A couple of points (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Aceticon ( 140883 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @09:43AM (#3382960)
    1) CNN definitly shows a North American view of the world. I get CNN Europe and it's still mostly USA, USA, USA.
    After September 11 (even months after it) by comparison to European news networks it was extraordinary visible how much CNN concentrated on the "War on Terror" and "Live State Department Press Conferences" and "Brave American Soldiers in Afganistan" while all that time the situation in the West-Bank degraded into extreme violence (one side with Tanks, Attack-Helicopters and Fighter-Bombers the other side with Human-Bombs).

    2) In order to even start to really understand a Country and it's People one has to live there. Television, magazines, radio and newspapers will NEVER give you enough of a background and people-feeling to allow you to really understand the issues. Going there on vacations doesn't work either - you will always get the "Special Turist Treatment" and the fact that you dress different, behave different and even worse - don't know the local language - will always guarantee that people (even unconsciously) will act differently towards you.
    • To be a bit cynical, violence and atrocities in the Middle East isn't particularly "new" news compared to large-scale attacks on the United States, which have been rather surprisingly rare, considering how many groups would be pleased to be have completed such an attack.

      Is it surprising that Palestinians still talk about Palestinian land, "from the river to the sea", or that "In the Palestinian lexicon, Israel has no place on the map" (Frontline interviews [pbs.org])? Not really; even a "peacemaker" like Arafat has made, well, pretty much zero concessions. Ever. Other than saying, well, that he'd consider destroying Israel with demographics (unlimited "right of return" to Israeli land) than with military force.

      And as a result of Arafat going against even his own negotiators and screwing over both Barak and Clinton by never making concessions, let alone a peace plan, and stipulating only additional demands, they got Gen. Sharon. The results are obvious.
  • Of course its'not. It's no magic bullet to cure humanity. When we talk of the world getting more connected, the global village, and whatnot, we are speaking of change over many, many, many years. That's where things are headed. We are not there yet. If it looks like we are, it's illusory.

    The Internet does not give most a new viewpoint on foreign culture. Poeple still tend to stick to the news they know. People still worship their local news programs (Americans love CNN. BBC News in teh UK, etc). World views are still largely influenced by school and society.

    The only way to truly understand and accept more cultures is to get out of your safe little homeland and go travelling.

  • He's looking at the big picture, but the wrong one (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tony Shepps ( 333 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @09:46AM (#3382965)
    During the last century, more people were killed by their own governments than were killed in wars. And while some of those killings were known about and the requisite attention paid, many more were purged in massive numbers while the rest of the world wasn't watching.

    Stalin and Mao killed literally millions per year while US college students studied their form of government and wondered whether it wouldn't be more fair than their own. After the end of the USSR, historians went in to try to figure out how many had been purged, and literally couldn't determine whether it was 20 million or 30 million -- that's how closed their society was.

    But if a government can't run tanks over students in Tiananmen Square without a camera catching the footage, something's changed.

    The situation in the middle east is that some cultures are still very closed. When UBL announces on several video tapes that he WAS in fact responsible and a majority of a culture still doesn't believe that fact, something else is going on there. But this is a short-term situation. The fact that al Jazzera exists and provides even a little competition in the war for people's minds, and the net is widely available, means the culture will slowly drift towards openness. I hope...
    • "But if a government can't run tanks over students in Tiananmen Square without a camera catching the footage, something's changed."

      Has it? Last week some rich Venezuelan company owners, backed by some sectors of the Armed Forces AND by the US government, took down the democratically elected president and put in his place the president of the Venezuelan Federation of Industries.

      In 48 hours the so-called "provisional" government was taken down by massive popular protest in Venezula's capital, Caracas. The Venuzuelan private networks AND CNN (both Spanish CNN and International CNN) never broadcasted the protests that brought the legitimate government back while they were happening. And not for the lack of cameras, the rich-people staged protests that some days before led to the coup were lavishly covered.

      So, what good is the camera if the networks will not let it turn to the real facts when the real facts disagree with the "correct" point of view?
    • When UBL announces on several video tapes that he WAS in fact responsible and a majority of a culture still doesn't believe that fact, something else is going on there.


      When did he say that? I've seen a couple tapes, but nothing where he says he did it. Perhaps people read in what they want to.

  • Seeing people at their worst ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Titusdot Groan ( 468949 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @09:50AM (#3382976) Journal
    My brother is a cop and he said one of the most important things you have to do as a cop is remember that you are sometimes seeing basically good people on the worst day of their entire lives; that not everybody you meet is criminal scum.

    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.

    • Amen to that. First impressions are all we get from the media, and those are difficult to overcome if you don't have an extremely open mind. When you watch Delta Force and Spy Games you have a a little suspension of disbelief, but when you see the same things live on CNN those images are cemented in your mind. It blew my mind the first time I talked to a programmer from over there. I thought they were all militia men, but it turns out he goes to night clubs, watches TV, and fantasizes about chicks too. Imagine that.

      Then on the flipside you have people in the United States who are becoming absolutely indignant toward their own government. Depending on who you ask, the strife in the middle east is all the United States' fault, damn those dirty scumbag Republicans. It's a series of knee jerk reactions that only escalate.

      For my own part, I canceled my cable subscription a long time ago. I rely on IRC and word of mouth for my news. Less drama and politics that way.
  • One aspect of this may be that here in the USA we seldom see the non mainstream view. Most people don't use the net(or their brains) to look at a news story we see on T.V. and hear the OTHER side from the internet. The first thing I do when I see an infalitory news story is go out and look at what the other side has to say. I might not a gree with them, but i want to here their side. Ive been lied to bu the us media, or only told half the story, or only gotten the 3 second sound byte too often to trust them for ANYTHING beyond getting the time, and maybe local weather.

    The other problem that may be related is a lack of language skills. I only speak english, so reading or searching for information in another language is useless to me. Yeah, theres the fish, but thats no help untill after ive found the article i need to read.

  • Some points... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by stain ain ( 151381 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @09:55AM (#3382986)
    To start off, 'the globalization of the media' means that we all watch CNN, not that we have access to different and diverse points of view as it would be desirable.
    Then, we give too much credibility to the media. Think about how mainstream media covers, often, news about a technology you know well and you know the stupidities that they say, don't you feel upset and think they completely misunderstand? Why should it be different with other kind of news?
    We should be able to have access to other points of view (language is a barrier here) and try to look at them with an open mind, this would be more information about one another, not what we have now.
    • Great point, If could I would moderate you to the top. It is important to read the message that CNN and other american media is telling everyone. American media and goverment tends to label XXX as evil and YYY as good. There is no grays level between evil and good. This certanly don't help.

  • Rubbish... (Score:2, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 )

    ...I hate everyone equally.

  • TV and Conflict (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Veteran ( 203989 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @10:02AM (#3383007)
    There is no great mystery here.

    Television long ago learned that the highest ratings come from controversy; people watch fights - not shows where people get along.

    As a result TV stirs up controversy whenever it can to increase ratings. This is the real reason that the so called 'fairness doctrine' where both sides of any dispute are required to be presented continues; people watch conflict.

    Given that TV principally shows conflict - it creates the impression in the viewers that conflict is all that exists; how could it do anything but make relations between people in the world worse?
    • ... TV stirs up controversy whenever it can to increase ratings. This is the real reason that the so called 'fairness doctrine' where both sides of any dispute are required to be presented continues; people watch conflict.

      Unfortunately for your argument, the "fairness doctrine" (a former FCC regulation) was deleted as a government requirement quite a few years ago. This was in response to complaints from the networks that minor parties were demanding equal time as a result of every news item showing a major party politician, and covering them was not practical and distracted from coverage of the "important" news.

      Immediately after the fairness doctrine was removed the electronic media began a massive and unified move to the far left - in news, entertainment, and even children's cartoons.

      The change was so universal, extreme, and consistent that now even a moment of air time covering a centerist or moderately conservative view brings complaints that the network has gone to the far right. Actual right-wing viewpoints just don't make it to the air on television, nor do libertairan views, nor anything from most non left-wing-urban-US cultures.

      The only exceptions are the exposure of Moderate Conservative (as opposed to right-wing) viewpoionts in talk radio and as PART of the coverage on cable television's Fox News. (The latter has led to some coverage of Conservative views on other cable news channels.)

      Now if the media were after REAL conflict they'd be busy covering all sides of the issues, to maximize it. Instead the mainstream media still cover coastal urban and inner-city issues and viewpoints exclusively, with others merely characatured when they appear at all.

      The exception of the Moderate Conservative coverage in talk radio and cable news appears to have occurred solely as an economic fallout from the US's culture war: With the Progressive side covered and the Pluralist not, about half the potential audience was not served at all by the mainstream media. Conservative talk radio tapped into this potential source of advertising revenue, as did Fox News when it provided SOME coverage of their cultures' issues and news items.

      But you're still on target with the observation that "people watch conflict". It's just that dramatized artificial conflict is much more eye-grabbing than the real thing. So the media plays to their target audiences' biases with stereotypes and fictions, rather than risking offending them or making them more diverse and harder to predict by exposing them to accurate coverage and portrayals of other viewpoints and cultures.

      Meanwhile the officials who make the laws and policies are largely isolated from the actual people, but exposed to the media's news coverage. So the media can obtain considerable political power by feeding them false information about the opinions and likely voting behavior of the country's population. Thus they have a strong incentive to avoid any (non-belittling) mention of any political or social viewpoints other than their own and to run rigged public opinion polls whose results can be misrepresented.
      • Yin and Yang at work; the one thing that the media won't tolerate is any conflict with its view of the world. They have an automatic - subconscious understanding that their positions don't stand up very well when examined.

        Conflict every where else is ok with them.

        Thanks for the information on the 'Fairness Doctrine'.

      • Immediately after the fairness doctrine was removed the electronic media began a massive and unified move to the far left - in news, entertainment, and even children's cartoons.

        The change was so universal, extreme, and consistent that now even a moment of air time covering a centerist or moderately conservative view brings complaints that the network has gone to the far right. Actual right-wing viewpoints just don't make it to the air on television, nor do libertairan views, nor anything from most non left-wing-urban-US cultures.

        Do you have a speck of evidence for any of this or are you just parroting what the media tells you about itself?

        The more the media slides to the right, the more it screams about its "left-wing bias". But aside from empty-headed Hollywood celebrities being given free reign to have their leftish political opinions heard by a wide audience (which is worth griping about) I NEVER hear anyone express an opinion on television that is left of center.

        As for cartoons- well I don't watch cartoons anymore, so maybe they're glorifying Stalinism.
  • ...where aliens disguised as bikers plot to exterminate humans after seeng all the horrible stuff going on there in their media and concluding that they'd be saving the universe from such evil. When one falls in love with a human girl, he soon realizes that for some unfathomable reason all the good things about humanity just aren't considered newsworthy.
  • Technology sure evolved, but did you ever ask yourself if humanity has evolved?
    • There is no more evolution around. The problem being that the 'survival of the fittest' in the modern changing world doesn't determine which people do the most reproduction (it's quite the opposite). The image of geeks as people who never score isn't very helpful either.

  • "Familiarity breeds contempt?"

    Not a new idea...

    -Russ
  • Fact is that people don't like things that are different. That's why as people get older, younger people's music always sucks. The thought processes is, "if I liked X, I'd do/have/be X".

    Republicans don't like Democrats, Anglophones don't like Francophones, Catholics don't like Athiests, thin people don't like fat people, vegetarians don't like omnivores, IT staff don't like lusers, and so on.

    Most people have a partially tolerant view, that "as long as I don't have to hear/see/agree/participate, I guess it's okay", but that's the extent of it. As for say, racism, the rule still applies, despite all the political correctness we've tried to nurture. (Sure, things are better, but it'll never be perfect.)

    Case in point: take a traditional urban black male and put him in a traditional white environment. Who's uncomfortable? Both sides. Tiger Woods aside, since he dresses, talks, and acts without any of the stereotypical "black" affectations. He doesn't "axe" people questions, and he doesn't rap through interviews. I'm deliberately exagerating the point here. While we've damped racism down enough that visible minorities CAN get ahead, they have to act like the majority to do so.

    We don't LIKE different. The Internet exposes us to different. Therefore the Internet exposes us to things we don't like. Screw tolerance, I'd just be happy if all those AOL'ers out there would die, die, die.
  • "Familiarity breeds contempt"

    Exposure to others can aggravate existing prejudices. Also, though, exposure can prevent prejudices from forming.

    One think worth noting, however, is the role of censorship and bias. If all anyone sees of the U.S. is what a government hostile to the U.S. wishes them to see, then the "global village" is really just a propaganda machine. Information can always be distorted to simultaneously suit opposite views -- watch any political debate and you can see that in action. And in reality, there is bias in all media (the U.S. is no exception). The stronger the bias, the greater the chances that it can be used to generate hostility.

  • Heh... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Cutriss ( 262920 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @10:30AM (#3383083) Homepage
    <SNIP>
    "In some ways, global satellite TV and Internet access have actually made the world a less understanding, less tolerant place." Reg. required blah blah</SNIP>
    Heh...I guess Hemos is proving the author's point. :)

  • worse? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DeBattell ( 460265 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @10:32AM (#3383096)
    I don't see how anyone can claim that the world is more violent/less tolerant than it used to be. These days if 10 people die its news. 50 years ago 10,000 could die without making headlines. Millions died in the world wars. What we see today is NOTHING by comparison.
  • ... that most of it is likely to be biased, half-truths, reinforcement of stereotypes, or some times plain wrong. I believe that one needs to choose the sources of information appopriately. Likewise communicating with people too

    Same with any real world interaction -- e.g., if you have good friends and read "good stuff", chances are you'd turn out to be good.

    Is it just me or anyone notice people going into a rage everytime they see the news or read newspapers? The same old eternal problems seem to occupy front pages every day (tanks rolling in/people bombing, people killed in communal violence, to drill or not to drill in Alaska, Microsoft says OSS is evil :)

    Here is my attempt to "categorize" experience on the net:

    News: Plusses -- Essential ; minuses -- Enraging/helplessness
    Discussions: Plusses -- Sense of community, wide range of views, healthy debates, find out past discussions ; minuses -- too much content
    Information: Plusses -- vital for learning, enriching, easy to get ; minuses -- might end up at the same pr0n site/games site after a few hops
    Misc: Plusses -- Health tips, inspiring readings, past literature, depressing reading!
  • An Arab intellectual named Abdel Monem Said recently surveyed the massive anti-Israel and anti-American protests by Egyptian students and said: ''They are galvanized by the images that they see on television. They want to be like the rock-throwers.'' By now everyone knows that satellite TV has helped deepen divisions in the Middle East. But it's worth remembering that it wasn't supposed to be this way.

    The globalization of the media was supposed to knit the world together. The more information we receive about one another, the thinking went, the more international understanding will prevail. An injustice in Thailand will be instantly known and ultimately remedied by people in London or San Francisco. The father of worldwide television, Ted Turner, once said, ''My main concern is to be a benefit to the world, to build up a global communications system that helps humanity come together.'' These days we are living with the results -- a young man in Somalia watches the attack on the south tower live, while Americans can hear more, and sooner, about Kandahar or Ramallah than the county next to theirs.

    But this technological togetherness has not created the human bonds that were promised. In some ways, global satellite TV and Internet access have actually made the world a less understanding, less tolerant place. 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 -- in the Arab world and everywhere else, including here.

    ''I think what's best about my country is not exportable,'' says Frank Holliwell, the American anthropologist in ''A Flag for Sunrise,'' Robert Stone's 1981 novel about Central America. The line kept playing in my mind recently as I traveled through Africa and watched, on television screens from Butare, Rwanda, to Burao, Somalia, CNN's coverage of the war on terrorism, which was shown like a mini-series, complete with the ominous score. Three months after the World Trade Center attacks, I found myself sitting in a hotel lobby by Lake Victoria watching Larry King preside over a special commemoration with a montage of grief-stricken American faces and flags while Melissa Etheridge sang ''Heal Me.'' Back home, I would have had the requisite tears in my eyes. But I was in Africa, and I wanted us to stop talking about ourselves in front of strangers. Worse, the Ugandans watching with me seemed to expect to hear nothing else. Like a dinner guest who realizes he has been the subject of all the talk, I wanted to turn to one of them: ''But enough about me -- anything momentous happening to you?'' In CNN's global village, everyone has to overhear one family's conversation.

    What America exports to poor countries through the ubiquitous media -- pictures of glittering abundance and national self-absorption -- enrages those whom it doesn't depress. In Sierra Leone, a teenage rebel in a disarmament camp tried to explain to me why he had joined one of the modern world's most brutal insurgencies: ''I see on television you have motorbikes, cars. I see some of your children on TV this high'' -- he held his hand up to his waist -- they have bikes for themselves, but we in Sierra Leone have nothing.'' Unable to possess what he saw in images beamed from halfway around the world, the teenager picked up an automatic rifle and turned his anger on his countrymen. On generator-powered VCR's in rebel jungle camps, the fantasies of such boy fighters were stoked with Rambo movies. To most of the world, America looks like a cross between a heavily armed action hero and a Lexus ad.

    Meanwhile, in this country the aperture for news from elsewhere has widened considerably since Sept. 11. And how does the world look to Americans? Like a nonstop series of human outrages. Just as what's best about America can't be exported, our imports in the global-image trade hardly represent the best from other countries either. Of course, the world is a nonstop series of human outrages, and you can argue that it's a good thing for Americans, with all our power, to know. But what interests me is the psychological effect of knowing. One day, you read that 600 Nigerians have been killed in a munitions explosion at an army barracks. The next day, you read that the number has risen to a thousand. The next day, you read nothing. The story has disappeared -- except something remains, a thousand dead Nigerians are lodged in some dim region of the mind, where they exact a toll. You've been exposed to one corner of human misery, but you've done nothing about it. Nor will you. You feel -- perhaps without being conscious of it -- an impotent guilt, and your helplessness makes you irritated and resentful, almost as if it's the fault of those thousand Nigerians for becoming your burden. We carry around the mental residue of millions of suffering human beings for whom we've done nothing.

    It is possible, of course, for media attention to galvanize action. Because of a newspaper photo, ordinary citizens send checks or pick up rocks. On the whole, knowing is better than not knowing; in any case, there's no going back. But at this halfway point between mutual ignorance and true understanding, the ''global village'' actually resembles a real one -- in my experience, not the utopian community promised by the boosters of globalization but a parochial place of manifold suspicions, rumors, resentments and half-truths. If the world seems to be growing more, rather than less, nasty these days, it might have something to do with the images all of us now carry around in our heads.

    George Packer is the author of ''The Village of Waiting'' and, most recently, ''Blood of the Liberals.''

  • Regardless of the technological mumbo-jumbo, one thing remains clear to me: all humans are essentially similar.

    Humans are generally narrow-minded, self-centered, jealous assholes. I'm not happy about that fact, but there it is. There's little joy in finding out more about people far away, only to learn that they're just like people that irritate me close to home.

    And, I expect, they feel exactly the same about me.

  • Tolerance as a constant (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nhavar ( 115351 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @11:08AM (#3383246) Homepage
    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.
    • If 2 people, cultures, etc are leaning towards friendly relations, more contact and communication will likely reinforce that tendency.

      If they are leaning towards unfriendly relations, then that tendency will likely be reinforced.

      It depends on the situation, whether communication and contact have a good effect or not. It appears that it tends to push people away from neutrality and reinforces any current leanings.

  • problem is in the cure (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    at least the 'cure' as defined by those that don't care to follow through. Too many have a fire-and-forget mentality, coupled with an irrational knee-jerk reaction instead of applying critical thought as to how their choices will actually help. The world is full of 'do nothing' laws, policies and causes; which only serve to satisfy certain populations that 'something is being done.' It matters not that the particular something they refer to is either doing nothing or causing a negative result, yet is doing so with great resources.


    Tolerance is _not_ based on aggreement. Thinking that it is spawned many of the problems mentioned here. Tolerance is definitely not defined by selective application of censorship. Tolerance is also not based upon the notion that it can itself be selectively applied. If someone gets on the air or net and says they disagree with a particular lifestyle, a particular policy or a particular action then it is entirely possible that if those opinions are not in sync with the elitists that set our 'open minded policy', that person will most likely get beaten, slandered, cursed, looted and at the very least censored. When this happens it creates a further divide. People who did not have much of an opinion previously are now galvanized, with the majority of those on the side of the victimized person. This process repeats itself at varying levels throughout the country and world at large, thus acting as a force that backs many into a corner. If you ever want to be surpised, back a 'harmless' little animal into a corner and watch how it will rip you a new one.

    On a related note is the distribution of resources. I love charities. I think that they give hope and more physical resources to those that need it the most. I also know that they are addictive and contagious, which adds to their merit. However they are the results of all good things in the world... ACTION. However, many feel like everything in life, including choices, opinions and thought, is taken care of for them. The become sheep who give credence to the saying that 'there is life then there is living.'

    If you choose to give to charities, you are doing a great service. If you choose to give of yourself (work instead of just passing cash) you are even better, and will get a much better reward. (That proud feeling that you made a positive difference, instead of just the fire and forget aspect that apathetically hopes something good will come of your dollar). However the line is drawn when you in _ANY_ way try to force others to give to your cause. Yes, folks that means taxes... which means any governmental funding. And here is a hint... remember that topic about a cornered animal? That happens here. You will drive away those that would normally give of their resources and themselves.
    Congratulations liberal, you are your own worst enemy, and especially are the worst enemy of the causes and people you _claim_ to champion.

  • For several decades we have tried being more tolerant of other cultures. As t.v. brings other nations into our homes, we see the results of our tolerance. We see the murder of innocent civilians by religious fantatics in the name of their god. We see women flogged by the police because they were raped. We see teachers sentenced to death for discussing historical facts in the classroom.

    We aren't less tolerant. We our outraged by barbarism.

    • As t.v. brings other nations into our homes, we see the results of our tolerance.


      Television typically brings "sensationalism" to the front, or else the ratings will fall.


      We see the murder of innocent civilians by religious fantatics in the name of their god.


      The media emphasizes that. Take for example, the middle east. Lot of palestinian civilians are also killed by Israeli military -- in the name of safety and security.


      We see women flogged by the police because they were raped. We see teachers sentenced to death for discussing historical facts in the classroom.

      The above statement supports the point of the original article. Would you watch the news if it had coverage on how many computers have been getting internet access in, say Sri Lanka. How many new colleges are coming up in middle east. Or, discussing new cuisines?

      The sexier news (unforntunately so) is that of people killing each other, or people being weird. Imagine the CNN saying "Arabs are just like us, no big news this week. To keep you occupied, we are going to show cats, the musical tonight instead of nightly news!"

      In my country, the TV shows usually depict stereotypes of Americans -- sex hounds, no morals, no stable families, etc. After living in the US, I have seen that everyone is basically just trying to be happy. Over time I realized that people find my conversations boring. Imagine what must be going through the minds of TV executives.

  • Rediculous (Score:3, Interesting)

    by piecewise ( 169377 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @11:48AM (#3383398) Journal
    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.
  • ... made communication between different species possibles, thus starting a great number of wars.

    - Douglas Adams, THGTTH

  • Science is undergoing a similar phenomenon... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tickenest ( 544722 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @11:59AM (#3383453) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • The reason... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by fizban ( 58094 )
    ... in my opinion, why we all seem to be so intolerant of each other online, is that we are now able for the first time ever to speak with lots of people from other cultures whom we've never ever been in contact with before in the history of earth. There are A LOT of preconceived notions we all have about one another and the only solution is to have us all continue to speak and write with each other. We are in the initial stages of communication and we have a lot of fears and uneasiness to get past. Until that is done, all our intolerances will continue to thrive. The internet hasn't made us *more* intolerant. It's just allowed our intolerances to come to light in global grandness. Our intolerances are not hidden anymore. But at least now that they are out in the sunshine, we will more easily be able to fight them and create a more understanding and enlightened world.
  • The view expressed by this article isn't a new one and is supported by my many prominent thinkers on globalization.

    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.

  • Say you go on the internet, you are going to look for people more like yourself. Without the internet it might be hard to find people who think just like you do, but with the net this is easy. this makes it easier for the group to grow.

  • "Communication" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gnovos ( 447128 ) <gnovos.chipped@net> on Sunday April 21, 2002 @01:06PM (#3383653) Homepage Journal
    ...implies a bidirectional flow of information. Being spoonfed soundbites is an one-way street. It would not suprise me in the least that a one-way biased information pummeling would cause some resentment. Hell, I hate it, and I'm American!
  • Here's my obligatory link to the New York Times Random Login Generator [majcher.com].

    View the article without registering yourself, and help clog up their database.
  • 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 [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 [cluetrain.org]: 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.
  • I don't think that I could like any of you any less.
  • "what if all the hubbaloo about connecting people via the Internet makes us less likely to like each other?"

    Hmm. I used to spend waaaay too much free time on IRC. I visited austnet a lot and made quite a few friends. I've even been to Australia and met quite a few of the people I useta talk to.

    That comment in the heading of this article kind of surprised me. I found the internet to be a better way to find out more about people. I was able to ask people questions on IRC that I just couldn't ask in real life. Persoanlly I think that lead to better understanding and to stronger friendships.

    But you know, I think the NYT was talking about the media. The media has a way of rubbing people the wrong way. When I was in Australia, it was during Clinton's impeachment. Oh my... I could not get away from that, even in Austrlia! I could certainly imagine nobody thinking very highly of us when our president's in the news for being human, but there's missiles being fired in the middle east. That did get a little coverage, but not a whole lot.

    I guess what I'm saying is that I think people will know each other better when talking 1 on 1, but you get the media involved, and I think their twisted values will taint everybody's opinions.
  • The people who watch television and become angry are not becoming angry because of some blind hatred of people who are different. Rather, they see the enormous wealth and waste in the West and get upset. They see that other people enjoy freedoms that they never thought possible. So, yes, they are becoming "less tolerant": "less tolerant of inequality, poverty, and suppression".

    Because of its enormous disparities in wealth, and because of the phantasy world portrayed in the media, the US is a particularly bad example to the world.

    Living in the West, we have two choices: either we keep our wealth secret, or we work more strongly towards equality, opportunity, and wealth in all the nations of the world. But if we flaunt our wealth and don't share it, the consequences are predictable.

  • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Algebraic symbols are used when you do not know what you are talking about. -- Philippe Schnoebelen

Close