Kristen Gyles | Reading more than just the headline

Increasingly, I have been noticing a trend: people do not read anymore.

Since the advent of TikTok and Instagram, many people seem to no longer have the attention span to read an entire news item. Instead, they read the headline posted on social media and, having drawn a conclusion from the headline alone, immediately open the comment section to give their “two cents”. And then, of those who are industrious enough to actually locate the written piece associated with the headline and begin reading it, many do not read beyond the first few sentences before getting tired and giving up.

How do I know this is the case? Several times, I have seen or heard someone represent a book, a news article, a report from a government agency or even a lengthy Facebook post as saying something that was absolutely not said. Were it not for my having read it myself, I would not have been able to recognise that the individual had completely missed the point. Again, this situation usually arises because the individual has either not read the piece at all or has not read it in full.

This is a dangerous game, and many people do not even realise they are playing it.

My July 24 article was titled ‘Matthew Samuda’s Question’. The “question” being referred to was Minister Samuda’s query regarding whether the review of statutory declarations for members of the Integrity Commission Parliamentary Oversight Committee should be conducted by the Financial Investigations Division (FID) instead of the Integrity Commission (IC), owing to a perceived conflict of interest arising from the IC performing that role.

The article stated very clearly that the author is of the view that a conflict arises where the IC has to report to a parliamentary oversight committee, given that all members of that committee file statutory declarations with the IC. The article suggested that, rather than reporting to a parliamentary committee, the IC should ideally report to another non-partisan entity or individual and that, in some countries, the president, governor or other head of state is most suitable for this role.

SURPRISED

Given all that, I was a bit surprised to see a letter to the editor titled ‘Neither Gov’t Nor IC Should Hold Absolute Power’, which referenced my article and stated, among other things:

“Suggesting that the FID take over the review of MPs’ filings disrupts ... delicate equilibrium (balance). Moving accountability functions away from an independent watchdog risks undermining the mutual accountability already hard-coded into our democratic framework.”

Oh brother!

Again, one of three things occurred. The article that was referenced was either not read in full or not read at all. Otherwise, these comments could not have been a response to the position articulated in that piece, since I stated clearly that it would be problematic for members of parliament to file statutory declarations with the FID, and further proposed no change to the arrangement under which parliamentarians file with the IC. My comments were solely in relation to the IC’s reporting relationship with Parliament.

It reminds me of an article I wrote a few years ago titled ‘The Path of Discipline’, in which I made a tongue-in-cheek comparison between the so-called flamboyance of locs and Afros and that of permed hair. I suggested that those who believe locs should be banned from schools because they are a distraction should also feel the same way about processed hair.

Someone, obviously very upset, emailed me to say that Jamaica is filled with problems such as crime and the high cost of living, and therefore they could not believe that I was advocating for the banning of locs.

Good grief!

Just imagine it: someone clearly opposed to a ban being accused of advocating for one.

The structure of the article made me immediately realise that the individual had not read beyond paragraph five. Had they done so, they would have realised that the point of the article was the exact opposite of what they had assumed.

READ IN FULL

No, it is not expected that everyone will read every book, every news article and every piece of literature that bears on Jamaican life. However, if a piece of writing interests you enough to comment on it and, further, to draft a written response to it, then it would make sense to read that piece in full.

The other issue is that there seems to be a glaring inability among many people to understand simple nuances. One can agree with Minister Samuda on one point and disagree with him on another. One can agree that the current reporting relationship between the IC and the parliamentary oversight committee is less than ideal and, at the same time, disagree with members of the committee filing to the FID. Meaningful public discourse has become increasingly strained because people struggle to engage constructively in conversations about nuanced issues.

At the root of this problem is the fact that we do not read to understand. We read to argue and to rebut. Aside from reading pieces in full, can we start reading what is actually said and resist the urge to become enraged over what we think was meant?

Reading is fundamental ... and I’m not talking about headlines.

Kristen Gyles is a free-thinking public affairs opinionator. Send feedback to kristengyles@gmail.com and columns@gleanerjm.com