Did you know there was an earthquake in Tadjikistan earlier this week, and the day after bombs were falling? At the same time a suicide bomber in Moscow blew up at the aiport, and currently the Swedish Democrats, a rather anti immigrant party who was currently elected into parliament, are arguing that terrorists more often than not are muslim. There is turmoil in North Africa, most recently in Egypt and yet New York times headlines concerns the job situation and economy within the U.S.
We do always care more about what is close to our homes and hearts, but we all have a home and a heart.
The media, as illustrated by the NY Times, has an influence over us. Perhaps not so much in what we think, but rather what we think about. We are only human beings, with a limited time and attention span. Thus we rely on the media to inform us of what we need to give attention, the media sets the agenda. The media is not all bad, and it is a difficult job to decide which issue that is worthy of our attention. Everything can not possibly be of interest, but yet everything and anything can be classified as information. The media employ the concept of priming, it points out which elements of which issue that is important. Of course simultaneously the media is trying to sell a story, to reach a wider public, and earn more money. So it chooses for us -at least those of us who have yet not formed an opinion, as salient people will give issues attended by the media more attention regardless of the amount of the media coverage.
I have nothing against the media, but it is not always I understand why, how, and who that deceides what becomes important on the agenda. I believe it is in everyone's interest to be informed, to be open minded and to try to learn what goes on around them. Unfortuneatly, when using the word "everyone" it is easy to lose the individual. This is called the Bystanders phenomenon, and simply put it discuss when people do nothing to help others.
I am personally very interested in the genocide that took place in Rwanda. Why we, the general public and citizens and states of the world, did not do more?! I think that is shameful, and my only excuse is that I was only 9 at the time. However the researchers Latane and Darley argued in the 1970's that situational factors explain (and excuse) the lack of help we give to others.
First there is something called "pluralistic ignorance": when we become bystanders in an emergency situation. Such as when the old man below my window fell down on the pavement and nobody helped him, until I ran down and borrowed a chair from the the closest store. According to theory people in a group do not know how to respond, and look at others for guidance. As everyone is doing the same thing, we become paralysed and non responsive. For me this sounds like we are afraid to be different.
The other explanation given is the "diffusion of respopnsibility". If there's many people walk on the street, I do not have to feel so pressured into doing something, because someone else surely will. Here it only takes one more person to diffuse the responsibility from 100% to 50%. So responsibility becomes less important in a group, and when we identify a common identity -"everyone".
The bystander phenomenom is according to specialists a crucial component in genocide. We are afraid to act, even if we know that we should. Only those altruists who act on their feelings of empathy will make a difference. If you can imagine yourself in the position of someone else, and feel the suffering will you react instinctively to make a difference.
I am not naiive enough to believe I will make such a difference, but I can share my perspective, my views and maybe someone will listen.
