As I mentioned recently, I minored in “International Studies” in college. I took courses in political history, U.S. international relations, anthropology, and sociology. I also took one economics class, but I don’t recall a thing about it.  My minor was too broad, because I don’t remember very much, and it’s only been five years. I also didn’t read well.

When people started mentioning magazines they read for Weekly Geeks, I realized that I used to read The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs, and other political newspapers and magazines on a regular basis. Since graduation, I haven’t read them. But I greatly enjoyed political subjects: Why don’t I make time to read those things?

For me, this goes back to my ability to read. I’ve lost my attention span and I’m caught up in the quickness of Internet articles: why read the news when I can skim the headlines? It takes a large attention span to read Foreign Affairs, and I was ashamed that it was hard to read through an article by Secretary of State Condelezza Rice at first glance. I had to force myself to concentrate. I certainly shouldn’t find it so challenging: I studied these kinds of things in school!

Something Condelezza Rice wrote stuck with me:

We know that today’s headlines are rarely the same as history’s judgments.

I think my problems with reading newspapers stem from the fact that I’m not interested in “today’s headlines.” I’m much more interested in the big picture, the entire history of these things. My courses were mostly looking at the history of various political issues, not the modern-day situations, although those were an aspect of the courses I took.

I feel the need to read and study the events in the last 5-10 years of politics so I can understand where the world stands now. I feel very clumsy. And yet, I still don’t really look forward to “today’s headlines.” History’s judgments are so much more interesting.

Which do you find most interesting: today’s headlines or history’s judgments?