I was listening to a podcast the other day, where Tim Minchin was talking to Antoinette Lattouff about whether ‘ignorance is bliss’ can ever be an acceptable self-care strategy, in today’s hyper-informed world.
Essentially, what it boils down to, is whether the emotional benefits of NOT watching the news, can ever justify shunning the moral obligation to keep up with worldly affairs.
The interview came at quite an apt time, as I have been grappling with the guilt recently, of physically NEEDING to turn off the News at Ten, for feeling that my brain simply can’t take any more of the kind of stories that have dominated the headlines recently.
I am aware this is a bold admission, especially when moral correctness is measured by the extent to which one reads about, watches and ‘speaks out’ about, the world’s atrocities.
The truth is, however, that I haven’t been finding as much truth in the old ‘knowledge is power’ adage, as I have in the one that warns of the ‘dangers of knowing too much.’
Similar to to Tim’s theories (and maybe experience), the price I pay for being ‘au courant,’ is that I am so pre-occupied with risk aversion (and so devoid of faith in humanity) that I become a worse mother, wife, friend…and probably person in general.
Conversely, when my mind is unmarred by the dark realities of the world, I’m able to function relatively normally in each of these capacities.
I appreciate, of course, that this ‘ability to function normally’ is a privilege denied to those whose plights I am choosing to avoid the details of, and for this the old ‘keyboard warriors’ would no doubt label me a ‘silent bystander’… or worse.
However, the more I read on this subject, the more I’m beginning to appreciate that the mainstreaming of this term ’silent bystander’ might be subconsciously convincing Joe Public that they hold more power to ‘make a difference’ than they actually do. Maybe, in part, as a way of avoiding the finger of blame pointing to those who actually DO have the authority to illicit change, justice and so forth (ie. Governments and authorities.)
Realistically, as well, the human brain is not designed to consume news at either the pace - or on the geographical scale - that technology has made possible.
On a local level, the news can allow one’s moral goals (to stand up for what is right and good) to be actionable. For example, by engaging in local efforts that have an impact on people and communities.
On an international scale, the sense of injustice and tragedy cannot be tempered by such individual contributions, and the salve of ‘making a difference’ (which is needed to make the sting of horror, less) lies just out of reach.
As well as this, there is a definite issue with 'proportionality' when consuming too much news, in too much detail.
Essentially, it compromises our proficiency for 'bigger picture thinking', and risks creating a somewhat warped image of the way the world works. It’s a case of the more trees we focus on, the less we are able to see the wood.
As always, there seems to be a happy medium here, whereby it’s possible to balance the moral obligation of avoiding ignorance…with the duty of self care, whose benefits invariably also extend beyond the self.
What this middle ground looks like, for me, is disabling all push-notifications, and instead, reverting to the old-school act of buying a weekly, reputable newspaper. By fine tuning my media diet, I hope to be able to hold the weight of the world more lightly, and avoid that which I CAN legitimately make a difference to (my children…and their happiness, for starters) being sullied by that which I can’t.
Comments