I have heard two different reports on the radio recently that discussed the effect of technology on media. And, these comments then were turned to what this changing relationship with media means in the context of the war in Iraq.

The first report was a discussion between a radio broadcaster and a sociologist. The latter spoke of how the proliferation of digital cameras has meant that the war in Iraq has become “personal”. The second report was how the immediacy of voice on the web in particular has meant that media is now “less packaged” and more “raw” than before.

I think that both of these reports are speaking to the same phenomenon. I am trying to understand what I think this means.

To me, somehow, both discussions were sort of reporting (without saying) that many individuals now can and do own their “broadcasting” experience. I suppose then the question becomes who now owns the “viewing” experience? And… whose “experience” is it anyway?

The arrival of digital cameras has changed how we take pictures. Cameras/pictures are no longer reserved for special occasions. They are part of our daily experience. This is a huge change in our individual “recording”. We no longer simply record our family memories, we record our daily experience in the world. We record our world. And with the lack of development time, these pictures are immediately available for viewing. This allows retakes, revisions, getting the right — according to us — picture possible.

With the drop in long distance costs, with the proliferation of phone jacks in the homes, with the arrival of cell phones… the idea that “telephones” are reserved for special occasions across the globe, the idea that “telephones” are connections into “households”, “businesses”, “organizations” has disappeared. Phones now connect “individuals” to “individuals” or “individuals” to “groups” whenever the originating individual deems necessary or appropriate. This is a huge change from 30 years ago. Huge. We no longer filter through structure but we can continue to address structure if we that is what we need. This obliges notions of accountability (yes I am speaking to an individual but you are the voice for “x”). This affords the expression of personal opinion.

With the idea of networks (as a technology or as a concept), we now connect globally, instantly. An incredibly far cry from choosing between three television channels and a distinct number of local radio stations. This obliges notions of accountability for what we are and what we are not aware of… i.e. consciousness and conscience. It is no longer “I can’t get the news” it is now “I choose to ignore the news”.

Our connections “in and out” have exponentially expanded. Our access points, the connecting networks are immeasurable compared to where we started (and where we had been for decades).

“I” now can choose what information comes in. “I” now can express outwards instantly. “I” am now consistently reachable regardless of where “I” am or where the person is who is trying to reach me. “I” now matter. And my voice is clearly labelled as an individual or as representative of some larger-than-me entity, not by me but the person contacting me.

Good. This makes me accountable for my choices — be they passively or actively complicitous made.

So… with the war in Iran in the beginning of the 90’s, one recurring commentary was that “war had become completely de-personalized”. It seemed to play out on computer screens. I still remember feeling the “intellectual” and very cold shock of this. Now with the war in Iraq we are in a different state of shock… that of learning what a personal view “in” actually means. This shock is completely visceral. And now our intellects are trying to figure out what on earth to do with this.

In an exchange with my friend, I wrote that we now — really soon — need to figure out what this “doing” is. When we are so horrified, so disgusted, so affected we very quickly need to make a choice or else risk going mad in our helplessness. And the only choices are between disengaging (in order to not implode through the horror and our helplessness) or stopping this craziness. How then do we, now as individuals who are living this horror personally and viscerally (if we haven’t yet disengaged), affect a change in these events that matches our horror?

I guess we start by recording it. I guess we start by sharing it. I guess we simply start. As obviously, horribly we have.

How on earth are we continuing, daily, to allow “these same people” to make these same decisions? And, moreover, what are our personal voices and associations that make us complicitous through our own inaction or action? I thought that in a democracy “we” choose who to give power to. I thought that this meant “we” are the ones who give power. Do we not have any safety measures in place for abuse? Can we not take it back? Are our laws so out of whack with what we’ve started that we can’t stop it? Do we not have the right to say “No. I will not be party to this.” Do we no longer own ourselves? Are we so used to “group” voices of “households”, “businesses”, “organizations” that we as individuals are only “part of” and not a “part” ourselves?

What is it that we are teaching our children? Speak up but accept helplessness? You matter until someone else decides you don’t? Stand up for what you believe but don’t bother with the “big stuff” given that there are no “real” solutions? Seek out a grownup, they will help you but do make sure that you avoid the bad ones? Where are the grownups? And, more than that, where are the good ones?

Oops… I thought that was me. But not in this case. Well when then?

And… will we have any children left?