Creating the Media

The Internet–particularly the invention of blogging–has irreversibly transformed the way we receive and process information. No longer can mainstream media define the plane of debate; anybody can independently fact-check a source and publish their findings for the world to see. The ongoing debate over the Goldstone Report is evidence of this fact: even primary sources, such as UN documents, no longer go without heavy scrutiny.

With a much greater diversity of sources available for general consumption, the argument can be made that one no longer has to be quite as careful when scrutinizing sources. If you have a question about something, you can always just ask a field of (self-proclaimed) experts from all over the world. If you need something explained, or you’re looking for an analysis of a news item, the information is at your fingertips. This revolution has given NGOs an unprecedented power. Now, any group can publish their own watchdog website or blog, thereby introducing an alternative source of information into the marketplace.

However, unlike the heavily regulated print and television media, the Internet is uncensored. Anybody can make any claim, no matter how absurd or ridiculous. Therefore, though there exists a greater variety of sources, the need to be aware of perspective is even greater; since any advocacy organization can publish any piece they want without editorial verification, we have to be hyper-aware of bias if we really are looking to find truth.

For example, I will use the NGO Monitor blog. I have quoted the organization before, and I still believe that they do positive fact-checking and rumor-killing in the name of advancing peace in Israel. Much of the blog reads as an objective analysis of the lies and truths produced on both sides of the Israel-Palestine debate. For an organization like NGO Monitor, whose goals require at least the image of objectivity, these articles are highly effective. Indeed, it is sometimes difficult to discern facts from opinion in the pieces, which does credit to the writers.

As I scrolled down the page, my blood ran cold as my eyes fell upon my least favorite political cartoon of all time: Dry Bones. Aside from using blatant factual distortions for political purposes, the cartoon tends to take a blanket stance against the UN and the non-Jewish Arab people of the Middle East. Dry Bones is more than just a set of panels with a political message; it usually represents the voice of far-right extremists.

I am disappointed to see that an organization which seeks peace through truth supports an extremist ideology. There’s nothing wrong with a group that uses online media as a method for disseminating their own ideas, but we must remember that authors and readers have a shared responsibility to the truth. Authors should make clear their biases, while readers have to pick up on subtle (or not-so-subtle, as the case may be) hints as to what motives a particular writer has. Only when this is fulfilled can we come close to approximating truth.