AFTERTHOUGHTS

[Stanley]

AFTERTHOUGHTS

14 July 2005

I was reflecting this morning on the fact that we are still getting wall to wall coverage of the bombs in London and a two-minute silence has been called for today. My mind roved over the numerous accidents and tragedies we have seen that I consider just as terrible as 7/7 but which received very little publicity and soon sank into obscurity. Saturday 22nd September 1934, 2am in the morning, the Dennis Main Section at Gresford Colliery blew killing 256 men. Aberfan, 21 October 1966, a spoil heap collapsed causing a mud slide which engulfed the local school and killed 116 children and 5 teachers. Make your own list, there are plenty to choose from.
How do you compare one tragedy with another? I suppose the answer is that you can't, but one thing is certain, if a tragedy is measured by the amount of media coverage it receives, the more avenues of information there are, the more coverage there will be. Therefore, modern events get more coverage than was the case at the time say in 1934 with Gresford.
This blanket coverage and universal awareness seems to have another effect. Because of the universality of the coverage, there seems to be some sort of 'critical mass' effect which can become a very powerful force, we saw this with the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. It was a brave man or woman who stood up then and said sensible things and I have a feeling that the same applies now with the London Bombings. What will the reaction be to people who ignore the two minutes silence today?
This is the reason I have brought this piece to the fore. With hindsight I was right about 9/11 and my first and worst fears were justified. This isn't to say that I see 7/7 as a direct consequence, it is far more complicated than that. At the same time, anyone who says that there is no connection to the attack on Iraq is missing the point.
My train of thought this morning led me to consider whether the scale of media coverage could have the same effect on religious fanaticism as it had on private grief when Diana died. My conclusion is that it's possible, that it is an important factor and that some restraint would probably be a good thing. It could be that, deprived of the oxygen of publicity, religious fanatics would find it harder to sway impressionable young men and women and convert them into expendable vehicles for bombing. Gung-ho leaders might find it harder to mobilize support for ill-thought out retaliation. Martyrs might not be as enthusiastic if they couldn't count on instant fame through publicity.
This is all useless speculation of course, the media have the power, they are in competition with other channels and nothing is going to stop relentless coverage of what to them is a great news story. However, if enough of us voice doubts, counsel thought and restraint and refuse to be swept away with the tide, the core of common sense and rational thought which in the end is our most powerful defence against any sort of tyranny will be kept alive.
My way of doing this is to remember the RAF bombing in Iraq in the 1920s, keep Gresford, Aberfan and the other events in mind and every now and then re-read 'Sideshow' and 'Dresden'. It doesn't change the world but at least it helps me to keep a sense of proportion. I would recommend that to all of you.

14 July 2005

[Once again, weirdly prescient and applicable to what is going on today...]