![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jenny_islanderI continue with my reading of On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century by Timothy Snyder.
"Lesson 11: Investigate. Figure things out for yourself. Spend more time with long articles. Subsidize investigative journalism by subscribing to print media. Realize that some of what is on the internet is there to harm you. Learn about sites that investigate propaganda campaigns (some of which come from abroad). Take responsibility for what you communicate with others."
There is so much in this chapter that I want people to see that I had a difficult time deciding what to leave out. Here, I think, is a useful sketch of Snyder's argument--mostly in quotes.
" 'What is truth?' Sometimes people ask this question because they wish to do nothing...It is your ability to discern facts that makes you an individual, and our collective trust in common knowledge that makes us a society. The individual who investigates is also the citizen who builds. The leader who dislikes the investigators is a potential tyrant."
Snyder relays the observation of Hannah Arendt, in 1971, that there was no way for the mass communications of the times to be overridden sufficiently to hide "factuality," in her case the truth about the Vietnam War. He notes that modern computing has changed that. "For many Americans, the two-dimensional world of the internet has become more important than the three-dimensional world of human contact. People going door to door encounter the surprised blinking of American citizens who realize that they have to talk about politics with a flesh-and-blood human being rather than having their views affirmed by their Facebook feeds. Within the two-dimensional internet world, new collectivities have arisen, invisible by the light of day--tribes with distinct worldviews, beholden to manipulations. (And, yes, there is a conspiracy that you can find online: It is the one to keep you online, looking for conspiracies.)"
This seems at first like more harrumphing by the elder generation. But remember that Snyder has spent years digging through eyewitness accounts of the rise of tyranny, resistance to tyranny, and the fall of tyranny. He repeatedly warns us in this book that tyranny hates facts, thinking, and communication that it does not control. We can also infer from his accounts of the rise of tyranny that not giving people time to figure out how to react on one hand, and pushing them into despair or apathy on the other, are great weapons of tyranny.
"We need print journalists," Snyder says, "so that stories can develop on the page and in our minds...When we learn them from a screen...we tend to be drawn in by the logic of spectacle. When we learn of one scandal, it whets our appetite for the next. Once we subliminally accept that we are watching a reality show rather than thinking about real life, no image can actually hurt the [tyrant] politically."
We need time and breathing room "to consider the meaning, for ourselves and our country, of what might otherwise seem to be isolated bits of information." And that, he contends, is the job of "the better print journalists."
Snyder warns about reflexive disdain of mainstream media. "It is derision that is mainstream and easy, and actual journalism that is...difficult."
Here he employs a rhetorical trick that is often used to imply that people ought to shut up, but I think he is being serious. "So try for yourself to write a proper article, involving work in the real world: traveling, interviewing, maintaining relationships with sources, researching in written records, verifying everything, writing and revising drafts, all on a tight and unforgiving schedule. If you find you like doing this," he says, "keep a blog." A high standard indeed. If all bloggers held to it, there would be less to read online--but is that actually a bad thing? Is trying to drink from a firehose a good thing? Weren't we able to maintain and save civilization without 24-hour news or the ability to endlessly scroll?
Snyder defends paywalled journalism. "We find it natural that we pay for a plumber or a mechanic, but demand our news for free...should we form our political judgment on the basis of zero investment? We get what we pay for."
The immediate objection that comes to mind is poverty. I was desperately poor myself not so long ago. (Now I am merely uneasily poor.) From that perspective, I say that library cards are ammunition for freedom of thought and getting better all the time. Library cards get you past many online paywalls. Libraries often have racks of current newspapers and magazines to read on site. They may offer back issues to take away for free--and that does not necessarily make the information in them out of date. Get a card if you can, and if you haven't been to your library or your library site recently, take a look.
Getting your print news via the library is also a good way for you to figure out how to stretch your subscription dollars. Unfortunately, pace Snyder, mainstream media has increasingly been bought up, and declawed, by megacorps. There is still good journalism to be found, however. Do go and look.
Snyder isn't completely averse to online media. "If we do pursue the facts, the internet gives us an enviable power to convey them." He reminds us that the authorities he cites in this chapter--Leszek Kołakowski, Hanna Arendt, Viktor Klemperer, Václav Havel--did their work in the face, and under the feet, of tyranny. They passed around printed copies of thoughts that were illegal to possess. They escaped to places where they could speak publicly in safety. But they all knew someone who had been silenced in ways that ranged from denial of access to a publisher, to judicial murder.
We have a weapon that earlier generations of journalists did not. We all have publishing houses in our pockets or on our desks. Therefore, says Snyder, "each of us bears some private responsibility for the public's sense of truth. If we are serious about seeking the facts, we can each make a small revolution in the way the internet works. If you are verifying information for yourself, you will not send on [lies and sensationalism] to others. If you choose to follow reporters whom you have reason to trust, you can also transmit what they have learned to others. If you [disseminate] only the work of humans who have followed journalistic protocols, you are less likely to debase your brain interacting with bots and trolls"--and, I add, foreign agents.
It isn't just visual spectacle that divorces the mind from awareness of real consequences for what is happening on the screen. "We do not see the minds that we hurt when we publish falsehoods, but that does not mean that we do no harm." He uses the analogy of a driver protecting other drivers. Most of the time you don't see the other driver, just a shiny windshield. But you follow the rules of the road to keep that person safe anyway. Thus also for the information superhighway. Keep in mind that real people can really get hurt, and life gets better for everyone.
What Snyder is asking for in this chapter is a great sea change in our online lives. And I think he is right.
It sounds like so much work! But, again, if practicing citizen journalism and journalistic scrutiny means producing and passing around less information, is that really a bad thing?
If the frighteners and dividers become more obvious by their inability to fit into a better online culture--I think that's a good thing.
"Lesson 11: Investigate. Figure things out for yourself. Spend more time with long articles. Subsidize investigative journalism by subscribing to print media. Realize that some of what is on the internet is there to harm you. Learn about sites that investigate propaganda campaigns (some of which come from abroad). Take responsibility for what you communicate with others."
There is so much in this chapter that I want people to see that I had a difficult time deciding what to leave out. Here, I think, is a useful sketch of Snyder's argument--mostly in quotes.
" 'What is truth?' Sometimes people ask this question because they wish to do nothing...It is your ability to discern facts that makes you an individual, and our collective trust in common knowledge that makes us a society. The individual who investigates is also the citizen who builds. The leader who dislikes the investigators is a potential tyrant."
Snyder relays the observation of Hannah Arendt, in 1971, that there was no way for the mass communications of the times to be overridden sufficiently to hide "factuality," in her case the truth about the Vietnam War. He notes that modern computing has changed that. "For many Americans, the two-dimensional world of the internet has become more important than the three-dimensional world of human contact. People going door to door encounter the surprised blinking of American citizens who realize that they have to talk about politics with a flesh-and-blood human being rather than having their views affirmed by their Facebook feeds. Within the two-dimensional internet world, new collectivities have arisen, invisible by the light of day--tribes with distinct worldviews, beholden to manipulations. (And, yes, there is a conspiracy that you can find online: It is the one to keep you online, looking for conspiracies.)"
This seems at first like more harrumphing by the elder generation. But remember that Snyder has spent years digging through eyewitness accounts of the rise of tyranny, resistance to tyranny, and the fall of tyranny. He repeatedly warns us in this book that tyranny hates facts, thinking, and communication that it does not control. We can also infer from his accounts of the rise of tyranny that not giving people time to figure out how to react on one hand, and pushing them into despair or apathy on the other, are great weapons of tyranny.
"We need print journalists," Snyder says, "so that stories can develop on the page and in our minds...When we learn them from a screen...we tend to be drawn in by the logic of spectacle. When we learn of one scandal, it whets our appetite for the next. Once we subliminally accept that we are watching a reality show rather than thinking about real life, no image can actually hurt the [tyrant] politically."
We need time and breathing room "to consider the meaning, for ourselves and our country, of what might otherwise seem to be isolated bits of information." And that, he contends, is the job of "the better print journalists."
Snyder warns about reflexive disdain of mainstream media. "It is derision that is mainstream and easy, and actual journalism that is...difficult."
Here he employs a rhetorical trick that is often used to imply that people ought to shut up, but I think he is being serious. "So try for yourself to write a proper article, involving work in the real world: traveling, interviewing, maintaining relationships with sources, researching in written records, verifying everything, writing and revising drafts, all on a tight and unforgiving schedule. If you find you like doing this," he says, "keep a blog." A high standard indeed. If all bloggers held to it, there would be less to read online--but is that actually a bad thing? Is trying to drink from a firehose a good thing? Weren't we able to maintain and save civilization without 24-hour news or the ability to endlessly scroll?
Snyder defends paywalled journalism. "We find it natural that we pay for a plumber or a mechanic, but demand our news for free...should we form our political judgment on the basis of zero investment? We get what we pay for."
The immediate objection that comes to mind is poverty. I was desperately poor myself not so long ago. (Now I am merely uneasily poor.) From that perspective, I say that library cards are ammunition for freedom of thought and getting better all the time. Library cards get you past many online paywalls. Libraries often have racks of current newspapers and magazines to read on site. They may offer back issues to take away for free--and that does not necessarily make the information in them out of date. Get a card if you can, and if you haven't been to your library or your library site recently, take a look.
Getting your print news via the library is also a good way for you to figure out how to stretch your subscription dollars. Unfortunately, pace Snyder, mainstream media has increasingly been bought up, and declawed, by megacorps. There is still good journalism to be found, however. Do go and look.
Snyder isn't completely averse to online media. "If we do pursue the facts, the internet gives us an enviable power to convey them." He reminds us that the authorities he cites in this chapter--Leszek Kołakowski, Hanna Arendt, Viktor Klemperer, Václav Havel--did their work in the face, and under the feet, of tyranny. They passed around printed copies of thoughts that were illegal to possess. They escaped to places where they could speak publicly in safety. But they all knew someone who had been silenced in ways that ranged from denial of access to a publisher, to judicial murder.
We have a weapon that earlier generations of journalists did not. We all have publishing houses in our pockets or on our desks. Therefore, says Snyder, "each of us bears some private responsibility for the public's sense of truth. If we are serious about seeking the facts, we can each make a small revolution in the way the internet works. If you are verifying information for yourself, you will not send on [lies and sensationalism] to others. If you choose to follow reporters whom you have reason to trust, you can also transmit what they have learned to others. If you [disseminate] only the work of humans who have followed journalistic protocols, you are less likely to debase your brain interacting with bots and trolls"--and, I add, foreign agents.
It isn't just visual spectacle that divorces the mind from awareness of real consequences for what is happening on the screen. "We do not see the minds that we hurt when we publish falsehoods, but that does not mean that we do no harm." He uses the analogy of a driver protecting other drivers. Most of the time you don't see the other driver, just a shiny windshield. But you follow the rules of the road to keep that person safe anyway. Thus also for the information superhighway. Keep in mind that real people can really get hurt, and life gets better for everyone.
What Snyder is asking for in this chapter is a great sea change in our online lives. And I think he is right.
It sounds like so much work! But, again, if practicing citizen journalism and journalistic scrutiny means producing and passing around less information, is that really a bad thing?
If the frighteners and dividers become more obvious by their inability to fit into a better online culture--I think that's a good thing.
