News without context doesn’t work

Too many people today only go to daily newspapers or nightly broadcasts for their news. Regardless of whether or not that source adequately explains some current event, by the time the broadcast is up or the article is read we move on to prime-time programming or watch the Star Wars kid on YouTube one more time, our curiosities apparently satisfied.

Dailies aren’t enough. They give us nothing but the cold hard facts and omit the context. This is fine if you have an historical understanding of the topic, but most Americans don’t.

Events earlier this year exemplified why we need to change the way we present information in dailies so they also provide context.

Looking at the coverage of the three-week Israeli offensive against Hamas, which ended Jan.18, we can see that the overwhelming amount of coverage was reporting the “situation on the ground” – that is, reporting how many casualties occurred that day, what military maneuvers were exercised, etc. But this information is useless to us, because it doesn’t help us understand the conflict. It doesn’t tell us why the conflict occurred.

The news shallowly tried to address that concern simply by framing the fighting, saying it began when Hamas started shooting rockets into Israel. But why had Hamas done that, and why then? No reason? Apparently this conflict just arose. A healthy dose of skepticism will immediately raise alarm at such a proposition.

It’s no wonder, then, that such simple narratives about those involved exist in the United States: “Oh, they just hate each other,” “That’s the way it is in the Middle-East,” “All Muslims are evil,” etc. Oversimplifications are bound to exist when explanations are necessary, but learning historical context is inconvenient.

The Middle East is only sporadically mentioned in the news when there is some bombing or attack.

Meanwhile, events between these constant atrocities – which could help explain what caused them – go unreported or aren’t connected.

This past Monday, the Wall Street Journal was the only daily of the big four (the others being the Washington Post, The New York Times, and USA Today) to report that Israel just took another chunk of land in the West Bank to pave way for 2,500 more settlement homes.

I certainly don’t want to create an inaccurate black-and-white narrative with Israel as the “bad guy,” but events like this have led to fighting in the past. Yet many dailies decided not to mention the issue, and the one that did failed to connect that some Palestinians will kill people over it.

It is likely that another conflict between Israel and her neighbors will break out in the future, not because “Oh, they just hate each other,” or “That’s the way it is in the Middle-East” – but for more complicated reasons. Maybe the next one will be in part because of these new settlements, maybe not. But if we don’t start explaining the significance of news like Monday’s, then when another bombing occurs or conflict breaks out, we won’t have a chance to understand it.