Staying up with the blue screen glow

[dolorosa_12]

I was watching a Youtube interview yesterday, and a question by the interviewer, and the interviewee's response clarified and crystalised something that has long been frustrating me about the way a lot of people communicate about crises, causes and injustices they consider important.

The interview was about US military and financial aid to Ukraine, and the interviewer asked why there was this constant background mood music about 'war fatigue' among Americans who are not, themselves, doing any of the fighting in this war — but really the specifics of the question aren't important. The interviewee's response is applicable in many, many different contexts, though.

She said that the issue isn't so much 'war fatigue,' but rather compassion fatigue and how it is fueled by media framing and coverage: constant, blow-by-blow, real-time coverage of terrifying catastrophes and horrific atrocities relating to an overwhelming number of wars, injustices, and things like pandemics and climate change — while simultaneously making people consuming this material feel like they have no agency. One understandable response is to disengage with the news altogether, leading to the 'war fatigue' described above.

But it was the 'making people feel as if they have no agency' that caused something to click into place for me: a more effective way to deal with this problem is to encourage people to engage with the news in different ways (ditch the real-time clickbaity live feed coverage and do the equivalent of reading a physical newspaper, watching a single daily news bulletin, reading/watching/listening to long-form commentary and analysis after a certain amount of time has passed from the events being analysed), and to communicate in ways that nurtures a sense of agency in people.

Because the truth is, we do have agency, at least if we live in (albeit flawed) democratic countries. (The situation is of course very different in totalitarian or authoritarian countries, in which individuals do have agency, but the risk in excercising it is so much greater.) And there are ways to communicate — if one is a person outraged by a particular series of atrocities or injustices — that can remind potentially like-minded people of their agency in the situation and encourage them to exercise it. Maybe as individuals or as part of a grassroots collective movement their agency isn't enough to stop the specific atrocities or injustices happening, but the more people who can be encouraged to act in this way, the greater the chance is that they can push back against the tide. (I remember here an article I read a year or so ago which argued that the best way to respond to a frightening situation is to do something physical, with other people, that allows you to exercise agency in the face of the scary situation; the example used was a massive uptick in Taiwanese citizens signing up for classes in combat medicine in response to some belligerent behaviour by China, I'm reminded also of the residents of Kyiv who took part in an impromptu class led by chemistry students at one of the universities in making molotov cocktails on the first day of the full-scale invasion. Both examples allowed the people to feel less alone, and feel like they were taking action rather than sitting in passive uncertainty.)

In contrast, there are ways to communicate — with which I've been experiencing increasing frustration since I first started recognising this as a pattern six months or so ago — which encourage a kind of overwhelmed, passive outrage: a constant stream of 'awareness raising' of atrocities (often accompanied by accusatory comments such as 'why is no one else sharing this?') which has the overall effect of reminding people of their powerlessness and lack of agency in the situation. The 'awareness raising' seems to be the entire point of the communication: to highlight their own awareness, and to be seen to be doing so; no further actions to respond to the issue are included. A lot of the time this is unintentional (and culturally reinforced by similar behaviour within a social circle), but I also think that in many such cases, it's a deliberate attempt to make people feel disempowered, demotivated and atomised. The former I find frustrating, the latter I find quite sinister.

Since this whole post is about encouraging a sense of agency, I'd be remiss if I ended it without suggesting some concrete actions. I don't really feel that anyone here on Dreamwidth communicates in the way that I've been deploring above, but I feel certain that a lot of us have experienced it — possibly within our broader social circles, or on other social media platforms. So I guess what I would suggest for those who feel similarly to me is: try to be more alert to this pattern of communication, and its effect on your mood and ability to respond to terrible things happening in the world. Recognise its cumulative effect, try to gently discourage it if you feel people would be receptive to that — and be cautious of people treated as laudable and authoritative if this is the sole way they seem to respond to issues that they claim are important to them.

Maybe all this isn't such a lightbulb moment for you as it was to me, but I've been wrestling with these kinds of questions for quite a few years now, and something about this specific interview response made a whole lot of things click into place.

Comments

[pauraque]

These are good points. I started to notice the problem some years ago when I saw that a news outlet had a feature they called, with apparent lack of irony, "The Outrage of the Day". How in the world can readers be expected to respond to that framing with anything but exhaustion and apathy? I agree that it's far better to suggest realistic courses of positive action, even if small-scale, rather than blast people with a relentless firehose of horribleness.

[dolorosa_12]

News outlets bear a lot of the blame — but in some ways they are just giving people what they want, since so much of their revenue is now driven by rage-clicking (or anything which funnels a large number of people towards their site). If people don't pay for the news through subscriptions any more, they have to make the money somehow. But engaging with the news in that way is a choice, and there are ways to stay informed that don't involve subjecting oneself to the 'relentless firehose of horribleness' that you describe.

I blame the media, but I also blame people for encouraging this kind of approach by treating passive signal boosting and awareness raising (without offering concrete steps to take after becoming aware of an injustice) as their sole contribution to an issue or cause. If you have time to click a 'share' button, you have time to suggest some concrete actions (and if not, you have no responsibility clicking 'share').

[schneefink]

I'm definitely familiar with the compassion fatigue problem. With the side-effects of then feeling bad because I don't care as much about some atrocities than I do others, namely those I have more of a personal connection to in some ways, which then makes me feel selfish even though it's very normal, etc. etc.

I also find it very hard to differentiate between people pointing out patterns of what things get how much coverage to raise awareness, and people pointing to different levels of coverage just as a distraction and/or to shame others.

[dolorosa_12]

Honestly I think the world would be a better place if more people cared deeply about a smaller handful of issues and took action in response to those specific issues, rather than spreading themselves thin trying to respond to an unmanageable number of issues. That way lies burnout — and less concrete work done trying to tackle each individual issue. In some ways I think this desire (which comes from a good place — wanting to feel empathy and compassion) to demonstrate awareness of every injustice and atrocity is what leads to such superficial, unhelpful responses, whereas a deeper engagement with a smaller number of things might actually lead to concrete change.

I also find it very hard to differentiate between people pointing out patterns of what things get how much coverage to raise awareness, and people pointing to different levels of coverage just as a distraction and/or to shame others.

I find people who do this really disingenuous — and it's such a counterproductive way to engage with the world. If they were (for example) encouraging people to write complaints/letters to the editor to media outlets pointing out double standards or lack of coverage or poor quality coverage, that would be one thing, but all they seem to want is outraged sharing of viral posts. Which, again, encourages a sense of apathy and futility (and conspiratorial thinking, e.g. 'you won't see this in the mainstream media!').

I have far less patience for all this than I used to, and I've lost a lot of respect for people whose sole contribution to issues they supposedly view as of crucial importance consists of this sort of viral posting — unless they want people viewing their posts to feel apathy, despair, and that they are alone. I hope that's not what they want, but sometimes I wonder.

[rmc28]

I have an FT premium subscription through my university login, which gives me daily headlines Mon-Fri, and a weekly digital subscription to the Economist that I pay for myself, and I generally listen to while walking / cycling / taking public transport. (Sometimes that means I'm through it by the end of Friday and sometimes that means I'm still listening to it the following Thursday.) I've been consciously getting my news from these sources and not social media since I think last summer and it's really a big improvement.

Both publications have a specific business focus and political stance, but they aren't outrage machines, and they do tend to thoughtful analysis.

[dolorosa_12]

That seems like a very, very sensible approach. I do something similar (not with those specific outlets, but a similar way of engaging with the news), and you're right — it makes such a difference in terms of mental health.

[muccamukk]

I feel like giving yourself a break or permission to pick your battles is also helpful. One of the magazines I subscribe to had an update yesterday with a run of very serious, well written stories, and I looked at the list, and went "My dad's sick today, I'm exhausted, and I'll look at these later." So much of the 24-hour news cycle effect is "You need to care about this NOW! ALL THE TIME! NO BREAKS!" and I do doom scroll sometimes, we all do, but mostly I'm trying to not do that. I don't need to know all that in order to care and act.

[dolorosa_12]

So much of the 24-hour news cycle effect is "You need to care about this NOW! ALL THE TIME! NO BREAKS!" and I do doom scroll sometimes, we all do, but mostly I'm trying to not do that. I don't need to know all that in order to care and act.

This is so, so true, and it's really something I wish more people would understand. (I think some people mistake the knowing for the caring and acting.)

[likeadeuce]

I agree completely

[dolorosa_12]

I'm glad to hear it!

[author_by_night]

That's honestly why I started limiting how much I read social media. I'm still ON social media a lot, but mostly to read my groups and do work.

ditch the real-time clickbaity live feed coverage and do the equivalent of reading a physical newspaper, watching a single daily news bulletin, reading/watching/listening to long-form commentary and analysis after a certain amount of time has passed from the events being analysed),

I think this is such a good point. I do try looking things up as well. I also try to consider how I can best approach an issue.

remember here an article I read a year or so ago which argued that the best way to respond to a frightening situation is to do something physical, with other people, that allows you to exercise agency in the face of the scary situation;

Yup. I've certainly found that.

One final note, which is kind of related to your point about clickbait: Let's stop with the "if you're a good person, you'll drop everything and share this" posts. I think they play a part in compassion fatigue too, both towards other people and to the issues. Instead, suggest or take action. Link to a charity, talk about a meal train you've set up for a grieving friend, talk about ways you can better understand an international conflict. That's also just more effective, let's be honest.

[dolorosa_12]

Let's stop with the "if you're a good person, you'll drop everything and share this" posts. I think they play a part in compassion fatigue too, both towards other people and to the issues. Instead, suggest or take action. Link to a charity, talk about a meal train you've set up for a grieving friend, talk about ways you can better understand an international conflict. That's also just more effective, let's be honest.

I agree absolutely one hundred per cent. I have more tolerance for those kinds of posts when the person posting is very young, or not very media savvy. But people who’ve been online for decades, supposedly grassroots activists and so on really should know better and I have very little respect for people who behave in this way.

[author_by_night]

Yes! I 100% posted "everyone share this if you care OMG" all the time in my twenties, between LJ and MySpace and God only knows where else. It makes me cringe so badly now. I also know people who I think focus more on the awareness part, and less on the guilt trip, and I get that, but please consider the guilt trip part.

What's frustrating is that there are times I've said "why don't we talk about ways we can actually help?" and of course you get crickets. Because action is harder than sharing a post. But maybe that should make one think about whether or not they should share the guilt trip in the first place.

[hoarmurath]

Yes.

I think I maybe have this less, because I get to witness many Estonians going over and helping in specific ways. And I suppose at least my government does stuff?

I do read daily blogs about it, though. But it's some guy collating information, so I get to avoid the worst material.

(Israel/Palestine is a bit different, but there I mostly try to learn as much about the "topic" as I can. And considering the rarity of Jews in Estonia, becoming more of a someone who at least knows more than the regular antisemitic canards is at least something? At least.)

[dolorosa_12]

Your country, both on a grassroots and government level, sets an example I wish were followed by more.

I think what you’re saying about the daily blogs is actually the type of media consumption that I recommend in this post — the format isn’t the important thing, it’s whether the coverage is unfolding piecemeal in real time (with incomplete information), or whether the news or analysis is being presented after the events described have taken place. The former has a way of massively increasing stress levels due to uncertainty (and often a very emotive way of presenting information).

[hoarmurath]

Yeah. I don't generally see the point of following liveblogs, they end up giving so much information that needs to be updated, and it's just not healthy.

Better to read something that has already had an experienced person go over it. And yeah, you can't live in emotions the entire time, if I did that from Feb 2022 to now, I mean, I'd be way less healthy than I am.

[dhampyresa]

These are really good points. I know I haven't been paying attention to the news in years, because my mental health is in the gutter enough already -- though that in turn makes me feel bad for not doing anything etc etc etc

Anyway, if anyone is reading this (and able to do so), please consider donating blood as that's always useful to do.

[dolorosa_12]

Part of managing mental health is knowing our limits (I go for months at a time without reading any news website and avoiding social media entirely), so it sounds as if you’re making the right decision for you.

And donating blood is always an excellent thing to do! (I can’t because my iron levels are too low and the last time I tried they basically said not to come back, but I would if I could.) Thank you for your own efforts in this regard!

[vriddy]

I love this, and this is helping me make sense of things as well. Thank you for taking the time to share.

[dolorosa_12]

You’re welcome. I’m glad it was helpful for you.

[scintilla10]

This is a very helpful way of framing this very common and demoralizing way of communicating! Naming and noticing this pattern helps me to manage my own responses. Thank you for writing it up!

[dolorosa_12]

I'm glad you found it helpful — it was really helpful for me, even though I think subconsciously I had recognised the problem with this form of communication long ago.

[meteordust]

Thanks for this post. It's really enlightening to realise that a big problem is making people feel like they have no agency.

I've come to appreciate communications that provide specific actions that people can take. Like the War on Waste documentaries, and some of the climate change podcasts, and your own posts about supporting Ukraine.

[dolorosa_12]

Climate change is such big one when it comes to the main culprits for this sort of thing — it's such a huge, terrifyingly overwhelming problem that communicating with a sense of hopelessness can make people give up. And yes, individual action alone is not enough, but by encouraging specific individual action, you help to create a social/cultural environment in which certain types of energy-saving/pollution-avoiding behaviour are considered laudable. Once these attitudes become mainstream, large corporations catch up in order to align themselves with cultural values. Big examples — at least in Europe — are attitudes towards electric cars, and international train travel being viewed as trendy/environmentally responsible behaviour. This all started as individual choices, but a critical mass was reached and now governments and corporations have rushed to catch up.