I know that I said I wouldn’t blog on Sunday. But I thought it would be a good excuse to post on the sort of topics that so many of you told me you don’t want to read. So if you only want to read funny stuff, do us both a favor and skip reading this blog on Sundays from now on.
Today’s topic is not about the Middle East, although it might look like it. I’ll just use the Middle East as an example to illustrate my point. My point is that the media never gives me the context I want.
As I have often said, I don’t vote because I am way too ignorant, despite spending a lot of my time reading and watching and listening to the news. No matter how much news I absorb, I am always left with some important questions of context that seem conspicuously unanswered.
Before I give you some examples, allow me to stipulate the obvious. I know that if I researched these questions on my own, I could often find answers. And in some cases I have done that. My complaint is that these things should be included prominently in the news so the ignorant and lazy viewer such as me receives the right context without working too hard. Without proper context, the news is misleading at best, and intentionally biased at worst.
For example, Iran has 25,000 Jewish citizens. The media made a big deal – and rightly so – about the president of Iran’s comments about “wiping Israel off the map,” and of his questioning the Holocaust. For context, wouldn’t you like to know how the Jews living in Iran are being treated? I know I can research that question on my own, but it seems like an important bit of context that was missing from the media reports. I’d like to know if the president of Iran is more like Hitler (i.e. already killing all the Jews he can get his hands on) or more like Noam Chomsky (taking issue with U.S. politics). As a practical matter, you have to assume the Iranian president is a total nut job and prepare for that. But wouldn’t you like to have the full context?
I’d also like to know how the Holocaust death total of 6 million was determined. Is it the sort of number that is so well documented with actual names and perhaps a Nazi paper trail that no historian could doubt its accuracy, give or take ten thousand? Or is it like every other LRN (large round number) that someone pulled out of his ass and it became true by repetition? Does the figure include resistance fighters and civilians who died in the normal course of war, or just the Jews rounded up and killed systematically? No reasonable person doubts that the Holocaust happened, but wouldn’t you like to know how the exact number was calculated, just for context? Without that context, I don’t know if I should lump the people who think the Holocaust might have been exaggerated for political purposes with the Holocaust deniers. If they are equally nuts, I’d like to know that. I want context.
The media also tells us that it makes no sense for a country that’s sitting atop huge oil fields to develop nuclear power. The implication is that Iran is obviously up to no good. But wouldn’t you like to hear an economist confirm that notion, just for context? It’s certainly not obvious to me that making cheap nuclear power for your own country and selling overpriced oil to suckers is a bad economic strategy.
See how different these two reports are:
News Guy: “Iran is building nuclear power plants, which economists agree is a brilliant financial move.”
Or
News Guy: “Iran is building nuclear power plants, which economists agree makes no financial sense.”
The media tells us that Iran isn’t cooperating with the nuke inspectors. Iran says it is complying with the reasonable requests but not the unreasonable ones. Wouldn’t you like to know which requests are considered unreasonable by Iran? Saddam didn’t fully cooperate with the nuke inspectors, and he had no nukes to hide. He probably thought the inspectors were spies, and he might have been right. So for context, wouldn’t you like to know what sorts of inspection requests Iran has resisted? And wouldn’t you like to know how easy it would be to hide the bomb-making factory and still appear to be complying with the nuke inspectors? I’d like to have that context.
The president of Iran says the religious leaders in his country have forbidden the making of a nuclear weapon. Wouldn’t you like to know the track record of Iranian religious leaders in terms of their honesty with important religious decrees such as this one? Politicians lie all the time, but do the top mullahs have a habit of head-faking with fatwahs? I’d like to know. Maybe they lie all the time, but it’s not obvious to me that Islamic religious leaders would take that sort of risk with their credibility. What’s the context?
Again, you don’t have to angrily lecture me that you don’t trust Iran, or that that toughness is the right strategy to deal with them. Iran has provided plenty of ammunition for that viewpoint. I’m just peeved that the media doesn’t give me the context I want.
What would YOU like to know that is conspicuously missing from the news?