When people think of the media, it is not something that people regard as unimportant or insignificant, yet the wide-reaching potential of media seems to be passively ignored. Even though it is a hugely important fact, it has the ability to envelop us while remaining completely invisible and unattainable from us.

Though numerous new forms of media emerged in the 21st century, television, radio and newspapers are the three that had huge significance in the 20th century and continue to be recognizable today, even though the former is probably the only one adaptable enough to suit the new age. Media is taken for granted, therefore we don’t really allow ourselves enough time to process the information we are given, nor can we be such critical consumers of the media in such a short time. The media can manifest rumors which negatively impact an individual in an instant, which can take up to years for the individual to regain all the credibility lost in that simple moment. Furthermore, despite it being falsified and being merely a rumor, people walk away from the issue never really taking time to think the other way around and criticize the media outlet. During 9/11, a huge part of the world is under the influence of the US media, greatly increasing the risk for transmitting manipulated information. And although it is not to say that the “facts” from the accident they presented were necessary “wrong”, the political implications afterwards (you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists) are undeniably aided by media. The branding and division of a “them” and “us” was made clear, and with the Bush administration’s especially tough stance on foreign policy, they intended to polarize their targets in black and white instead of the pluralized grey.

The implications of the media made things easier and harder at the same time. It eased confusion for the “passive” citizens in isolated countries, which, after seeing things presented as “America vs the terrorists”, had a really easy choice to make – to either side with a superpower or something that can destabilize their countries as well. On the other hand, it’s hard to locate “terrorism” on a map. Post-Cold War politics unleashed many new hidden traps, small conflicts and unexpected surprises everywhere, which after two decades could be argued as more vulnerable and dangerous than the more simple bipolar politics of the Cold War. When terrorism is not an actual enemy and al-Qaeda is not a state, where are you gonna point your fingers to? Well we already saw how they did it, albeit through media.

When I was young, I gave a blind trust to the ideal that “facts” are absolute, indisputable and stays constant through time. Looking back now, all three aspects are merely intolerable myths that was given to people to make them think in a certain way. Slowly but progressively, I’ve witnessed some massive discrepancies between the official historical discourses that has been presented to me and the individual accounts of the same event. Though presented quite often in my high school history class, it wasn’t until my ASTU class that I really got to actively see the differences between these two and how their respective strengths and weaknesses plays a part in shaping the way we perceive facts. Just like the earlier Persepolis and Obasan, 9/11 and Foer’s novel is no different.

My (current) belief is that any incident that happens has significances that varies by person and proximity. This is reinforced by the ASTU discussion on our personal experience and perception of the 9/11 attacks. We have the official historical discourse and Oskar’s experiences within Foer’s novel, but we also have our own personal experience to mix it all up. To some people like Oskar, they were directly involved in the attacks and had lost family members as a result, thus the event’s significance will no doubt run high in their personal memory. Some people in other western countries would be closely associated with the event, yet would not be as close to the event as those directly affected on September 11, 2001. And some people living in the third world, isolated from all the global political sphere and without the resources to reach the media, many not know about the event for many years to come.

With such radically different starting points to the event, its significance is already widely varied amongst different people. Some people – like Oskar – go to such great lengths because they’re directly affected. Oskar seems like he would go to unimaginable lengths just to uncover the key to a box which is allegedly full of his dad’s prized possessions that he would like to discover. Those that weren’t associated closely with the event would convince Oskar to let it go, or would think that his key search was baseless and aimless, but they are not Oskar, hence they will not truly understand where his POV is coming from.  There are different versions of the historical discourse of 9/11 that varies from place to place, and indeed from time to time in the same place as new evidences pop up. This is easy to happen as relations to the USA change and new conspiracy theories show up. Despite this, the effects of 9/11 has already been capitalized on and the subsequent impacts of 9/11 (Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003) had already incurred irreversible damage.

The more one knows, the more one will realize how little they actually know. When presented with one piece of information, we are all ready to accept or reject it, but with such a myriad of information containing conflicting responses to each other, finding the “real truth” is a huge challenge. We may ridicule others who do unreasonable things, such as finding a simple key, but we are not coming from where they’re from, hence we cannot really judge or understand that person. Official historical discourse is merely pieces of individual accounts pieced together to represent what they deem appropriate or justifies the present well enough. It should therefore be used with caution and be given the benefit of the doubt – but again what do I know?