Sunday, November 28, 2010

WIKILEAKS: Is document leaking good, or bad for preventing violent conflict?



This past weekend, the website Wikileaks released about 200 of the 251,287 confidential documents and cables from within the U.S. military computer system it plans to release in the near future. Only a few news sources, including the New York Times, have had access to the entire collection of confidential files. These reveal personal conversations, actions and details of American diplomacy within the past 3 years.

The information uncovered exposes (among many other issues): the international concern and discussion over the Iranian nuclear program, the diplomatic haggling over Guantanamo prisoners, and even a request from Secretaries of State Rice and Clinton for the investigation of UN representatives and key figures.

The leak is at the very least embarrassing, and at the most an international game-changer. Personal relationships, flaws, and doubts are exposed, as are real conversations about war, and the potential for more of it. In a country that is exhausted by a media that seems to care more about Kim Kardashian's boyfriend (or lack of one) than about international diplomacy, it can be refreshing to see someone pursuing investigative journalism to its core.

However, it does make me wonder whether this is a positive movement. Conflict resolution and diplomacy involve personal relationships, and trust. Communication is key to resolve or balance an kind of conflict. But forced full disclosure can lead to feelings of betrayal. Is the damaging of relationships a productive action? Is it possible that by releasing these secrets, wikileaks founder Julian Assange and others are doing more harm than good?

Again, this is something I cannot make my mind up about. I am entirely for investigative journalism, and consider figures like Carl Bernstein, Bob Woodward, and Edward R. Murrow some of the most important public servants in our history. However, wikileaks seems to go a bit past journalism, towards voyeurism. I am suspicious of recent "activism" as a self-serving movement, which can actually cause more misunderstanding and further violent conflict and distrust. So I am curious to see what you all think. Are the leaks productive? Could it be done more tactfully or is full exposure the correct way of addressing errors in diplomacy?

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

IF WE AMPLIFY EVERYTHING, WE HEAR NOTHING: Comedy and Conflict Resolution in Action.




This past weekend Jon Stewart's and Stephen Colbert's Rally To Restore Sanity And/Or Fear brought an estimated 215,000 people to the National Mall. Much similar to their work on Comedy Central, the Rally contained a balanced mix of comedy and common sense. Aside from the laughs I got from watching the Rally, I was also struck by its message as a tool for conflict resolution. Stewart's speech near the end of the Rally really brought this out:

"I can't control what people think this was. I can only tell you my intentions. This was not a rally to ridicule people of faith. Or people of activism or to look down our noses at the heartland or passionate argument or to suggest that times are not difficult and that we have nothing to fear. They are and we do. But we live now in hard times, not end times. And we can have animus and not be enemies."

Highlighting the commonalities between different Americans, of different political beliefs, religion, race and morals, Stewart attempted to show that we are not a country that is as divided as the media often seems to point out. "The country's 24-hour politico pundit panic conflict-onator did not cause our problems, but its existence makes solving them that much harder." Said Stewart, showcasing the inefficiency that comes in resolving conflict, if people are polarized and unable to see the other's point of view. "The press is our immune system. If it overreacts to everything we eventually get sicker."

A few days later, some of the press has reacted. Keith Olbermann for example, has dropped his "Worst Person in the World" segment as a response to Stewart's speech saying: "“Its satire and whimsy have gradually gotten lost in some anger, so in the spirit of the thing, as of right now, I am unilaterally suspending that segment with an eye towards discontinuing it.”

Using comedy as his medium of change, Stewart and Colbert have brought up the very important message of coexistence and collaboration at a time where generalizations and division rule. "Because we know instinctively as a people that if we are to get through the darkness and back into the light we have to work together and the truth is, there will always be darkness. And sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel isn’t the promised land. Sometimes it’s just New Jersey. But we do it anyway, together."

What do you think of Stewart's message/rally? Do you agree that in difficult times the media has polarized instead of helped solve problems? Do you think Stewart and Colbert are no different than other pundits, using the current political/economic situation to bring more attention to themselves? How do you feel about Comedy as a way of bringing about that message?

Personally, I find that comedy often leads me to better conclusions and more personal moral or life decisions. It can highlight the ridiculous in life and make it so absurd that you have no option but to disagree and fight against it. It can also bring us together and see that we all laugh aside from our differences and disputes. It can furthermore bring us down to face the sadness of our reality. The undertone present in comedy is often more relevant to our lives than the joke itself, but comedy allows us to get find it ourselves.

Do find that to be true or crap? How do you think comedy plays a role in Conflict? Share your thoughts...