I read the International Herald Tribune, and usually when I do, I read it from cover to cover. It is just fun to read. Even things that I would have no interest in otherwise. Occasionally, they cover fashion and one would find the article along with pictures of scrawny models covering one or two pages. I suppose, why the IHT may find it substantial to cover news such as fashion, sports and even movie reviews, is because they are news of a different sort, they may not represent half the world dressed in rags, no, they may not even represent the other quarter not interested in football; and while they may also not affect us like reality, movies somehow is news.
Interestingly enough, people like me, jobless and restless, consume it all. Of course, there are others, we may call them watchers-of-the-world, who watch everything including these newspapers as part of a diet to quench their understanding of the developments of the world. Recently, there was a small column on the editorial page, quite a modest one at the bottom, insignificantly titled if you did not care for too much abstract opinion not of consequence and weight to the matters of the world. It challenged the assumption so recurrently and undoubtedly supposed that we lived in a the "Information Age". The title? "Information Age? No, it's the Chatter Age". It carries a tinge of frivolous sarcasm. Or at least, it felt that way to me at first glance. But after reading a few articles in that same paper, for the day, it occurred to me that it carried more significance then I may nonchalantly grant.
The other articles include a letter to the women of Afghanistan and a commentary entitled, "New world, same gender roles". In the same paper, there was also an article of a Chinese telecommunications giant trying to find its way into the US market and the hostility it faced. Then, to capped it off, the recent Nobel Laureate's wife invited about 143 people to Oslo where neither she nor her husband would be to accept the grand prize for hopelessly and dangerously pursuing peace.
What has these articles, mention in the last paragraph have to do with the little article I contemptously disregarded in the afore paragraph to the last one? When I put them all together, I consider the simple need for communication and interaction amongst the human race. On my way home on the bus and train, sometimes I prefer to stare blankly into the outside of the moving vehicle then to look at the dull and lull of communication within the vehicle. Communication, like everything else is complicated.
In the letter to the women of Afghan, the writer (a lady herself but from Canada), rallies Afghan women to the bargaining table to stake a future for themselves. In Afghan, unlike many developed countries, communications is poor. Being in a state of war and turbulence the lack of communication may have both good and bad to it: seeing that communication can facilitate both the evil and ethical. The first thought in reading that article is: how many of the intended audience would really get to read the inspiring article? And even if a few inspired individuals would read and carry the message with them their means of connectedness, to the less inspired but much needed voters (in this case, women of Afghan), is impeded by so much, so much! In a way control comes from the means to rally but the means of rallying comes from the means of connecting before inspiring. And for Afghan women, so trapped in their plights, connectivity is alien, foreign and far-apart. The traditional roles of connectivity are still in the power of not just men but chauvinist.
Then, on the other hand, in the next commentary, the author also a lady mourns that while much changes have been made in the developed world, much significant change remains. She laments men still control the environment of money because they dominate the reins of creativity. They are in her words, "strivers, producers, creators, innovators, entrepreneurs and in the end, billionaires". Where are the women? Out of the loop, as usual. The women are all the sex not brain. And she draws this mainly from the recent movie, "The Social Network". The depiction that the movie communicates reality, according to her, is the ugly truth. Women are once again found to superficially skirt the areas of communication where the power lies within the arena of technology: the power of the new generation. Just ask Julian Assange as he takes on some of the most powerful governments of the day. But women are outside the power play because they are outside technology.
And if you still the doubt the power of communications, the list goes on with the fact that the US worries about China coming into the telecommunications market. Why? It may become a security problem.
I want to intensify the issue a little more. Should a country that controls and impedes, nay, but manipulate information through technological and communications restrictions be trusted with the bands and wires of communications. I fear disruption, I fear the buzzing intensity, so annoying and so interfering, of malfunctioning communication. Can China handle connectivity?
It cannot even handle Oslo! It cannot even handle the awards of the old generation! This is new age where nothing is under control, life is practically out of control! Where one hole is blocked a million will spout forth. All those people aimlessly chattering hoping something hits the target. Amidst all the confusion, we are optimistic that information of credibility will surface. We hope for the light to shine in the darkness. And China, just like all other oppressive governments including the chauvinist, suppresses by limiting connectivity. By having factions and orchestrating breakdowns in the flow of thoughts, space and chatter so that they can impound information.
But going back to the main article: is this the age of pure chatter or real information? Well, the problem is: who is to decide usefulness, who is to decide truth? The author lambaste tweets and little prattle as insignificant, but that is only because it qualifies in his eyes as mere jabber. The author claims self control is the only way out of this chatter. He thinks it is not too intelligent "when intelligent people feel obliged to respond to unfounded rumours". Truth is all those chatterers don't really care for his intelligent response to their unintelligent jabber.
So here I am, increasing that tittle-tattle and I will let the reader judge the intelligence of it. Sometimes, I get annoyed with all those idiots, big idiots, who have a million tweets about their insignificant life. But if it makes them happy all I can do is de-friend them or block their status. I will control what I hear and see and when I am in a more generous mood, I will hear and see them and, perhaps, when I am in even more generous to the point of playfulness, I may even reply to let them know somebody actually cares for their (by now, trillions) of tweet. As for the fact that it only makes our world more stupid, well, how will someone not educating, others and not speaking up, help the situation. Not everything is useful, but who will make that decision for someone else! We all want to make it for ourselves. Just ask the women of Afghan...
