The Radicalization of Zeke Spier

Talking about politics makes me very uncomfortable. I'm guilty, as I imagine too many people are, of not staying informed of current events and political issues.

This is just a little side story, that illustrates how most of my friends do not watch the news regularly. As you know by now I studied abroad in Rome. While I was there, there was an incredibly violent earthquake about 60 miles from the capital. It happened at around 3:30 in the morning and it was not strong in Rome, although you could feel a slight shaking of the ground. I woke up the next morning to frantic messages from my mom, and various other people who just wanted to make sure that I was alright. A few of my friends wrote on my facebook page, however, my best friends didn't seem to show any concern. I was just joking with them and I asked why they didn't care whether or not I died in the earthquake. But the reason was that they don't watch the news. It was very obvious to me after that situation who watches the news and who doesn't.

Another thing that I noticed was that those people who had watched the news that day were also the people that I remember being very passionate about the presidential debates and the politics that surrounded them. But in my opinion that is how it should be. It should be those people, that make an effort to stay informed, that argue about their beliefs. Obviously I understand the importance of freedom of speech, and we can't stop people from expressing themselves. But I think that many people formulate their opinions without making a conscious effort to hear both sides of the story.

Within the article, I respected Zeke because before he blindly joined a protest, and despite the "Adrenaline flowing," it seemed like he made a consistent effort to stay informed on the issues. In the counterargument within the article Elin points out that the internet "is replacing the physical public space where citizens are exposed to different points of view with a private place where individuals withdraw into themselves and reinforce deeply held prejudices." This is a very valid point. How many of you have had a discussion on politics and realized that the person that you were talking to could hear the exact same piece of information as you, but somehow in their mind manipulate it to fit their argument? I have had those conversations. People make opinions and then manipulate the information to support it rather than using all types of information to formulate their opinion. They hear what they want to hear.

In the article however, Zeke tried to avoid this exact situation. He claimed that he used the internet to "get smart." Zeke also said, "About 95% of the research I did was on the internet. I visited the IMF official website, then I would go and do a search to find all the protest groups - 20 or 30 groups. I wanted to make sure I was informed enough, so I went after the facts, myself." I think that although the author pointed out one of the risks of using the internet to research political issues, Zeke's use of the internet for his research demonstrates just how valuable a tool the internet can be when used in an objective manner to hear all sides. I think more people (myself included) should make an effort to become more informed and to get involved.