For the past three weeks we’ve been bombarded from all sides by news headlines tracking the ongoing chaos in Israel and Lebanon. The mainstream media has replayed the basic facts like an omnipresent, unreal sample: the lead-up to the war, Hezbollah guerillas taking two Israeli soldiers captive, and Israel’s military response to recover the captives. And let’s not forget the lack of involvement from the United States, Iran and Syria’s alleged funneling of arms and funds to Hezbollah, and the destruction of Lebanon’s basic infrastructure. But after a month of this relentless onslaught giving us the who-what-where-when-andhow, who among us honestly feels informed enough to have an actual opinion that they’d stand behind with confidence?

Though there are likely only a handful of us that would ever answer yes to this question, news pundits from every corner of the mainstream political landscape seem to know what’s going on, what’s justified, and what should be done…or do they?

Right-wing media outlets such as FOX News, and the National Post present Israel’s reaction in the conflict as a necessary measure. Front page of the National Post July 25: “Majority Supports Israel.” The July 27 National Post front page featured a commentary: “Now is not the time to stop,” explaining that to declare a ceasefire now would effectively pardon Hezbollah for the crime of waging aggressive war. The National Post’s July 28 front page commentary headline: “Al-Qaeda wants in on fight in Lebanon.” You get the drift.

In stark contrast, Arab news media such as Al-Jazeera has documented and replayed the destruction in Qana over and over, sparking outrage, anti-Semitic and anti-American sentiment throughout the Muslim world. From August 1: “Saudi Arabia yesterday held Israel responsible for the massacres and war crimes being committed by the Jewish state against the people of Lebanon. It also reaffirmed that the Kingdom, with all its political and economic capabilities, would stand by the Lebanese people.”

Here in our peaceful coastal city of Vancouver, those of us who feel obligated enough and have the time to “stay informed,” absorb as much fragmented coverage as we can, though it barely helps us to get a grasp on things. The overwhelming amount of news coverage of the Israel-Lebanon conflict thrown at us represents many different angles and sides. The news covers the issue in bites so fragmented and without context that, in spite of their mercilessly violent content, they never fail to fade into the back of our minds as effortlessly as the latest Hollywood blockbuster—an inconsistent gorging of bombs, political figures, and death.

Why is knowing what type of artillery Hezbollah and Israel are using more important than addressing the more pressing question of why these two nations are unable to come to a process of reconciliation?

As a result, most of us walk past newspaper stands as hurriedly as we walk past the homeless and feel a similar passing guilt and embarrassment: it’s a huge problem, and we’re supposed to care, but somehow we don’t.

If there is anything to be learned from the general ambivalence about this problem in spite of constant and redundant media coverage, it’s this: being “informed” is only half the battle— comprehension is the challenge, and the media hasn’t been meeting us halfway. The job of the media is not just to report events, but to provide a full account of the whole problem.

If you cut through the violence, the repetitive, superficial commentary, and the political biases of the media, what do you get? In terms of understanding, very little. Having simmered for almost half a century, the antagonism between Israel and Lebanon is not an isolated media sensation, and perhaps should not continue to be reported upon as such. To begin to care, we need context, and we need it bad.