Everyday, I come home from university to the sight of my grandpa sitting in his aged, black office chair watching the TV transmit the news through its pixels. I often sit with him–if only for a moment or two–curious to know about the different global events happening in the world around us. It wasn’t until recently that I began to think deeper; to see past the pretty news reporters and the underlining captions on the vibrant screen. Even though I had already known the concept of media censorship from high school social studies, it wasn’t until the term was mentioned in a recent Political Science class (POLI 100) at UBC that I began to accept the possibility of it in my own life.

Although local media does often cover various global issues, it goes unrealized that the newspapers, radios, TV broadcasting, etc often tend to only show stories that will attract public views. For example, a couple of weeks ago I watched a news broadcast regarding the Italian earthquakes. But instead of covering the amount of both survivors and casualties, the only report given in that segment was on the finding of a cat named “Joy.” (You can read this story here.) Now, please do not mistake my intentions if mentioning this seems to put it in a negative light–for I do believe that all lives saved during the earthquakes (or any other tragedy) is something that we can rejoice in. But imagine my surprise when I read that in an earthquake that “kill[ed] hundreds of people, a tiny cat [had] been found in the rubble.” I assume most people would respond with “awe”‘s and “it’s so cute”‘s. But for me, the first thought that popped into my head was “what about the people?” Once again, I am not degrading the value of animal life. But rather, I am simply suggesting the idea that the newscast chose to share the feline’s story due to the fact that it was what the public wanted to see. Providing hope is–generally–more favored in the public eye than despondency. It was these thoughts that soon led me to recall a piece of literature–Persepolis–that I had recently read in my Arts Academic Program (ASTU 100).

As a graphic memoir, Persepolis beautifully blends together humor and sorrow into a memorialized art form. Marjane Satrapi uniquely shows her childhood recollections of the Iranian Islamic Revolution and the war against Iraq through the eyes of a young girl named Marji. Through Marji, Satrapi not only addresses the question of who our true enemies are, but she also ingeniously incorporates issues such as feminism, religion, and freedom.

Thus, it wasn’t long until her subtle references towards media censorship caught my eye. The first panel that spurned my mind to turn was on page 83, when in the midst of the Iran-Iraq war the TV transmits the news of Iran’s counter-attack. But before they could celebrate Marji’s father insists on checking the radio, stating that “You can’t always believe what they say.” Even on page 111–where Marji provides evidence to two of her friends that the government is lying to them about how many Iraq militant vehicles they were destroying–the results of media censorship is clearly seen. For although one of her friends understands Marji’s argument, the second stays in a state of confusion and–arguably–disbelief.

Perhaps Satrapi’s subtle suggestion on the citizen’s obliviousness to reality parallels the Western view of global issues… We see only what the government wants us to see–what we as a society want to see. Maybe as individuals we choose to only see the news that directly correlates to our own lives but fail to be attentive to the happenings of those unaffiliated with us, therefore missing the majority of the actual situation.

Since the moment I cracked open Persepolis, I’ve always wondered why Satrapi chose to label the first chapter “The Veil.” What if her meaning extended past the physicality of the hijab? Perhaps she was also regarding the imaginary veil obscuring the Iranian citizen’s perceptions of the government. Or maybe she was in fact trying to turn our attention towards the veil that covers our eyes–causing us to enter into a state of preconceptions and prejudice.

This brings up the question of what it means to be a global citizen. Many claim that it’s the idea of becoming more interconnected with other nations through methods such as trade, technology, broadcasting, etc. This of course, can be true. But perhaps we should take a moment to consider this process of called globalization, because maybe our attempts to become more globalized individuals is instead delving us deeper into a world of oblivion.