Workshop Description

It is sometimes said that those who control information have power. This holds true in almost all scenarios, from wars around the world to companies doing business with each other. Information allows people to make decisions and act, but to be an informed citizen and one aware of human rights issues at home and abroad, one must first be aware of the media.

A classic example of propaganda during the cold war and its use in the media, as reported in The Lexus and the Olive Tree by Thomas L. Friedman, deals with a small shop in New York. It was very popular, and one morning, there was a line outside of it. A photo was taken of this lineup, and a report was later published in the Soviet Union about a food shortage in America. Does this happen today? Though not on such an obvious level, there are instances where words and images are presented to people in a way that allows their opinions to be manipulated.

No matter how hard anyone may try, it is impossible to get rid of the biases presented in newspaper articles, news reports, and other sources. The best way to see through this, however, is by reading from multiple sources. In many cases, even that fails to provide a reliable solution to the problem – how do we know which sources have different objectives, and do we really have enough time to read multiple newspapers every day?

In most cases, the answer to the above is “No”. With the amount of news being generated around the world every day, it is impossible to keep up with it all through one news source, let alone a couple. The trick is to know how to deal with the presentation of the news, and being aware of what is said. This is a key problem in human rights activism, as such news stories are what allow people to decide whether or not something is wrong.

Cognitive scientists and linguists have shown the importance of words and the way we perceive them on a subconscious level. In many cases, presenting a certain issue with specific words allows the reader or viewer to make a decision on whether or not to support the issue subjectively, rather than through an objective, human rights focused lens. The example put forth in different articles is “tax relief”. This is a contentious issue, as lower taxes allow us to save money, but hurts social services. No matter who debates, however, the supporter of tax relief always has the upper hand. Why? Because of the frame of the word “relief.” It implies there is a problem that is afflicting us, and anyone against “tax relief” is against solving a problem afflicting the general population. Would you support someone opposed to solving problems afflicting you and your friends?

The same applies to another issue currently being debated in Canada: gay marriage. When people think of marriage, what is the usual response? It is a religious ceremony, and one that is described in many religious texts. In this case, there is a difference between marriage and civil union under the government. Think about this scenario: if “gay marriage” was called “gay civil union”, do you think people’s emotional response would be as severe? Suddenly, the “gay marriage” issue turns into one that where our initial response is dictated more by words rather than the situation.

These responses, dictated by the words we read and images we see, do not apply to contentious issues, either. Reading about rebel groups, terrorism, activism, environmentalism, child labour, protests, and other issues around the world makes people respond emotionally to the situations and examples in the newspaper rather than what really happened. For example, consider the anti-globalization protests that we frequently hear about on the news. The whole story is rarely reported, simply because of a lack of time and space. Ask yourself: when you see the violent protests and riots against globalization, are you less likely to support the cause? In many cases, the violence makes us blind to the issue, and rarely do we hear of the rumours behind these protests, some of which go as far as saying that they are instigated by undercover police officers.

A recent example can shed light on this lack of information and how much it can affect our response to an issue. With the March 2004 train bombings in Spain, the government in power at the time was quick to blame the ETA, a terrorist group within Spain. This was a very harsh accusation, and think how your view of an organization would be altered if you heard it was being blamed for a deadly terrorist attack. Would these negative feelings change if you heard that the day before, a UN report accused the Spanish government of violating the group’s human rights through torture and harassment? This is exactly what happened, yet there was a substantial difference between the amount of blame put forward on the ETA, and the amount of journalists even mentioning that UN report. This lack of information, however, can dramatically change our response to the event.

Again, it is difficult to actually do all the research required to make a sound judgment. The thing to ask yourself before taking a stand on any issue is “What am I basing my decision on?” Make sure that your decision, be it one focusing on human rights or whether or not to buy a certain product, is one that is not based on a lacking amount of information, and more importantly, is not based on your initial and emotional response to the way the issue was presented, but rather that on what is really at the heart of the matter.