Shooting an Elephant

ink: Information vs. Confusion | FlowingData [via Cool Infographics]

There was a time when it was acceptable and common place to take what was broadcast with good faith and a deal of trust; when a newsreader was part of the family (cite cronkite). This period is nigh coming to a close. Now, issue must be taken with orthodox news channels. They are plagued by, and propogators of the worst afflictions of our time. That is to say, greed, perversion, injustice, corruption and narcissism. The number on tool in this horrorshow is the act of lying. Not only that, but doing so with a shred of truth is measurelessly more wicked.

It is to be seen that the framework of news relay has changed dramatically over the course of human history. Formerly, observational knowledge was imparted on those directly in contact with the witness. There exists little opportunity for misconstuction of the truth, as its awareness of was directly local. Excepting a case of skulduggery, whereby the truth could be willingly manipulated by a third party as a means to an end, there would be no common purpose in its debasement. Of course, it would be foolish to suggest there were no intrinsic flaw in the human psyche that inspired such wrongdoing. What is certain is that its effect would be considerably less potent, orchestrated and widespread. This is the role of structurally globalised society.

When global awareness of an issue is procured from a few reporters on the ground, reproduced in various countries, in different languages, to unqiue populations as part of a highly choreographed process, great and deeply troubling problems arise. Exactly like a game of chinese whispers, the message will be packaged, interpreted, summarised, commented, repackaged and processed again and again in this manner until scare all remains of what is important to an audience. What remains, is a carcass. All the nutritious meat has been cast aside, leaving only bones and grissle, enough to convince people that it is still a story. It still exists, but is no more recognisable as what it was conceived as. The news cycle feeds itself upon the flesh that is most constructive to its purpose, and leaves the rest for someone else to clean up.

More broadly, this is to suggest something at a fundamental level is corrupt with society, some untold wickeness that has forever laid underneath everything is beginning to broaden its reach, and we are starting to detect it. There is no reason to not believe in the individual goodness of persons, rather this proposes that when in large decentralised and impersonal groups such as corporations, all things immoral are cultivated.

"And that's the way it is"

I've been absolutely binging on 'infographics' over the last week. This is one of my favourites.
Perhaps only for its fine choice in colour ;)

Round-up of the best sites for data visualisation:
Good.is
Crikey's Graph Pron
Info is Beautiful
Visual Economics

I have many things to say, and very few ways in which I can reasonably express them. My emotions, I feel, are without correct outlet. It is possible to attribute this to any number of issues with myself and my lifestyle, which I won't go into. However, it is possible to express them in a way I should not. That is, broad sweeping statements, lacking proper evidence and expressing notions that may not have any logical substance. I'll begin...

Increasingly I think societies around the globe have developed into aesthetically minded, impulsive groups. Of course, the look and feel of things has always been important. With good reason, it is a primary concern in many areas. Without a concept of aesthetics, there would be no Da Vinci, Shakespeare, Rachmaninov, no Picasso, Orwell or Debussy. No doubt, it is important and wonderful. It becomes a problem when we factor it into decision making that requires slightly more than an idea of how the choice will affect us on an immediate sensual level.

I'll take the example of personal expression and behaviour, remembering that this too conveys a form of aesthetic experience. When we meet new people, immediately (and I stress this lies completely in the immediate) we are struck by a number of instantly recognisable traits. These are then, like it or not, lumped into categories: people with soft voices are feminine and stay indoors, whilst people who are dirty are lazy and don't earn very much money. This is generally a useful system to have in place. I'll take things back to ancient times (the primordial is always an easy place to prove a point about the human condition, I don't justify it's use here) where in a fight-or-flight situation we need these assumption techniques in place to make quick judgements; animals with big teeth will hurt me, brightly coloured animals are more often than not poisonous. Judgements like this, don't get me wrong, are very often correct. Why else would our brains for future reference retain them? We are learning beings after all.

Now what has arisen is a system where the individual has learned to such a degree these forms of perception used by our fellow man that we can abuse their power. If I'm in a business meeting and want to appear as though I am in touch with current world issues, I might mention as I'm filing into the board room "Hey did you see that piece in The Economist yesterday about [insert topical issue here]?” regardless of the answer and the ensuing conversation I have won some point with my colleague. I have formed another small piece of a link in this persons brain that I am engaged and concerned with issues that matter. Next time there comes a vote, let's say, on a proposal to move the company to a market that is risky and I agree that it's still a good idea to move ahead, this person will side with me, given the link is strong enough. I may have read that headline in passing in a newsstand outside my office building. We no longer need to be professional, as much as act professional.

In personal relationships, the same applies. Take a girl out to a (one off) lavish dinner - you are rich. Wear nice clothes, and you are successful. Act smart, and before anyone realises, you have an IQ of 184. We get what we want, when we want. Who decides what we want? Not us no, rather the pieces missing in a puzzle - we fill the gaps. This is a portrait of a globalised society, where advertising, the internet, a decline of professionalism, lowered standards, social security, talk not action, political apathy and treachery, form the framework of our day to day lives existing menacingly just under the surface. This is a world where, like a page on Google, it matters not who you are, but who you are perceived to be; who links to you…

Well, I'm back. And I don't have much to say yet, other than giving you an insight toward the namesake of this little corner of the web.

Shooting an elephant is titled after an essay by George Orwell of the same name. A fantastic recount of what the title suggests, more or less simple - no less moving - but for the closing sentences:

"I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool"

Thus we begin...