I wonder if the online world doesn’t actually provide us with a sense of structure we can easily doublecheck, and an environment of security most would argue is manifestly not the case. And in such a context, the offline world becomes a real challenge – a really hard call for sensitive souls to deal properly with.
A case in point.
I spent the last couple of days in London. I’d never used an Oyster card before. For those of you who don’t know, it’s a contactless payment system to allow you to travel around the city.
I don’t know, even now, how to properly use it. I don’t feel confident in its using. I’d much prefer it to have its own LCD screen, which informed you, as and when you needed, how much dosh was left on it; how much you had spent.
But it doesn’t work like that.
Neither is the Underground – nor the other rail & road services which connect off it – a network I understand with the necessary degrees of confidence. Perhaps familiarity breeds contentment – who knows? If I spent some time in London, I’m sure I could see it as a real-world equivalent of a blogging CMS; and be as comfortable with that network as I am with online ones.
So what was the purpose of all this stressful travelling around? I was attending the last public interview of Alan Rusbridger, as editor-in-chief of the Guardian newspaper for the past twenty years or so; an event and a half as it turned out; an event worthy of all the stress I kind of had to endure.
I even got to meet him after the interview; he was pressing the flesh patiently as any politician must. In a sense, then, being an editor is like being a politician; in the same way, perhaps, as a pope like Pope Francis shows a religious personage can also be political: politically attuned, at the very least.
Before the occasion started, convivial drinks were had by convivial people you’d probably expect to attend such a gathering. I’m not sure I am exactly that sort of person; but maybe oddballs fit into the Guardian‘s left field too.
The interview lasted around ninety minutes and covered a lot of ground. It reminded us of historical idiocies: of libel actions built on the sands of massive lies; of the phone-hacking stories; of the Trafigura super-injunctions which in themselves were super-injuncted (if I remember rightly …); of Snowden, the surveilled past he described and the rabbits-in-headlights future we are now living; of that awful billowingly fuel-laced 9/11 frontpage; of this and that and so much more.
What shone through all the way was a steely humanity: a necessary thick skin even notable editors sometimes fail to entirely acquire. I’m not sure I’ll ever have it; so really not sure I’ll ever be what – otherwise – I might have easily been.
But in the absence of something one would wish to possess, one can only admire more fully those who demonstrate it really can be done.
After the event itself, we went up for the complementary drinks. In the mix of disinterested and interested souls, there was the whiff of self-representation amongst some of those who attended. I always feel a little bit uncomfortable on these occasions: it seems bad form to approach someone who’s celebrating their tenure in order to exchange a business card. But I suppose thick skins do make the world go round. Or something …
Yes. Most people seemed older, and didn’t care too much about the impact of their words; but there was one young and gently thoughtful thirteen-year-old who spoke so clearly on the matters he had witnessed, it cheered me up immensely. As someone who’s part of a generation which has so failed the world, I can only hope more of these youngsters grab what has been our manifest and rank failure, and manage – in some way – to turn it round.
I see my own weaknesses, and wonder if I can ever turn my back story into history. I’m not sure it’s possible: it’s easy for people to play mind games with me; such an easy sport that like fox hunting, it should surely be outlawed.
Though they do say they want to bring it back, don’t they?
My question, then, I suppose is this: how can we create a world where the mind-gamers don’t trash and poison normal human relations? How can editors help to edit reality so it reaffirms instead of damages human discourse? How can the sacred role of journalistic endeavour bring us real truths that’ll pan out like the nuggets we really deserve?
How can we stop the bad editors taking control – of going so far as to outsource our souls? And how can we ensure that the mischievously good, clearly the Mr Rusbridgers of the world, win on our behalf the battles we need fighting?
Answer me that, and we’ll have solved half of everything that’s currently hurting.
Fail to provide any cogency – and people like myself, at least, who probably see and comprehend far too much of what really happens out there, will simply shrivel away in a morale-sapping decay we could easily call a final resignation.