The media didn't know anything new or helpful to report so they resorted to speculation to fill what would otherwise be dead air or anchors, announcers, and/or as-close-to-the-scene-as-possible reporters endlessly repeating what little they did know. Dearest has a rule that with breaking news stories, he watches until he has learned nothing new for an hour and then turns off the tv. We implemented that rule yesterday. We watched for about three hours when we first woke up, and when we stopped learning anything new, we turned off the tv in favor of podcasts while we deep cleaned the kitchen. While kitchen surfaces were drying, we checked the news and finding there was still nothing new to report, we turned off the tv and put on another podcast.
I began to wonder if that was callous and unfeeling. After much thought, I decided it was self-preserving. A person can only absorb so much horror. Three hours into coverage of breaking news, with nothing new to be reported, the images and words began to wash over me and become part of the background. Either that or as I had done last year with the attacks on Canadian Parliament, I become so involved in the story that I cease to function entirely and absorb everything. For my own sanity, I had to stop. I had to turn it off.
This morning, I woke to find the world is still talking about the Paris attacks, with good reason. But I also woke to find controversy had broken out as a result of individual responses to the attacks. People were now fighting with each other over whether the tributes are actually doing any good. People were questioning the motives and effectiveness of prayers. People were becoming targets of social media attacks because they changed their profile pictures to the Eiffel Tower or the French flag. The story became less about the attacks, victims, and survivors and more about innocent, but removed people's responses to the attacks.
In times when we can do nothing else but pray, we must do what we can. And in the era of social media and instant access, many people feel the need to make an overt show of support, simply because it is all they can do.
Personally, my response was to post a picture I took when I was in Aruba in January. It was immediately after the attacks in Paris on the offices of Charlie Hebdo. I had taken a sightseeing tour of the island and at a stop to see a natural bridge formation, I noticed someone had written in the sand "Nous Sommes Charlie." I took a picture of it, both because I felt the sentiment at the time, and because I thought it was a worthy tribute. In response to the attacks yesterday, I posted that photo. No one commented on it. I am not sure if that was because everyone forgot that 10 months ago we were all Charlie, or because I don't have that many Facebook friends. But either way, the post and tribute was not for the world to see and comment, but for my own personal reaction to the events unfolding. It was my own personal acknowledgement that it was all I could do.
In the overall scheme of things, my posting of a picture I took 10 months ago in the wake of a different, but all too similar, attack on Paris did nothing. It did not take away my feelings of overwhelming helplessness. It did not help bring the perpetrators to justice. It did not ease the suffering of victims, survivors or their families. It did, make me feel as though perhaps my thoughts and prayers were not falling on deaf ears. And for one brief moment, it made me feel as though I was a part of something that might do some good.
Nous Sommes Charlie.
Nous Sommes Paris.
Nous Sommes le Monde.
No comments:
Post a Comment