Rodger Streitmatter may have completely changed the way I view media as an impactful tool in society. His book, Voices of Revolution: The Dissident Press in America, not only served as glimpse into the past, but also in highlighting what has previously been done only shows how much more we should be doing today. It's amazing to see how voices have managed to be heard through the toughest of times, and consequently changes made because people decided to do something about the injustices they were subjected to. Living in todays society, which is so frequently riddled with the social movements and injustices it's crazy to think of how much change could be done it we only put our minds to it.
Part 1: Speaking up for the Disenfranchised features three chapters that each speak to the concept of "sticking it to the man".
The first chapter, Fighting for the Rights of American Labor, makes a huge point in just the first few pages. That "many of the groups recognized the important role that communication plays in the stability and growth of a social moment, so they committed the energy and resources necessary to establish their own papers." The chapter as a whole summarizes the union, and fight of American Labor Workers to speak up for their injustices and transform the system. As shown in the quote, they knew what had to be done and dedicated everything to making sure they at least were heard. The factory workers were being exploited and the mainstream basically didn't care. Then the factory workers decided they weren't just going to let his happen, and advocated for the wrong doings. And what do you know? Something went right.
The second chapter, Awakening The Nation to the Sins of Slavery, highlighted the birth of abolitionist news paper The Liberator and how its impact alone was a driving force in the establishment of the thirteenth amendment. William Lloyd Garrison, one dedicated man, with a quality following debated a huge topic mainstream media ignored and eventually his voice was heard.
Finally chapter three, Setting a Revolutionary Agenda for Womens Rights, highlighted how women were seen in society, and which women decided to raise their voices. Like the chapters that preceded it, a battle was fought, there was change, and a legacy was made.
It's said that the role of journalism is to report on brutality in society. Something only a few people are willing to do today. Independent media has to refight old battles. Even when it comes to things like Black Lives Matter, we're essentially fighting the same battles they did in that past. Whether it have to do with race, brutality, or even the rights of citizens compared to law enforcement, in essence, all of this was already solved. Yet we continue to get sucked back into these injustices and main stream media continues to ignore the bigger picture. Justice. We say If you don't see the injustice you will never do journalism about the injustice. This will continue to pose an immense amount of truth, unfortunatly even for today. We can't shy away from fighting the big battles because there can't be a winner, if there was never a fight to begin with.
Thursday, October 13, 2016
Sunday, October 2, 2016
What It Means To Bear Witness
Ariana Huffington ended her article Bearing Witness 2.0: You Can’t Spin 10,000 Tweets and Camera Phone Uploads on the Huffington Post's "The Blog" section with this sentence, "New media is not replacing the need to “bear witness,” it is spreading it beyond the elite few, and therefore making it harder for those elite few to get it as wrong as they’ve gotten it again and again".
The article was published in 2009 and it's interesting to note that today, essentially everything Huffington's last sentence highlighted is very very true. New media has given the opportunity for more and more independents to get things right, that the "elite few" either got wrong, didn't bother to explore, or even tired to cover up.
The article seems to be centered around the concept, to "bear-witness", and what that truly means. According to New York Times columnist Roger Cohen, "bear witness means being there — and that’s not free." Naturally Huffington slammed this idea, and boy does Cohen probably feel a little dumb right about now.
Not only did efforts of those who may not have "payed" to witness bring countless videos and photos and accounts from Iran and China, but more recently in Syria as well. In 2014 TIME published an article explaining how "the proliferation of social media reports cancels out the risks of relying on individual posts" Especially considering the risks of ground reporting were made too clear through the brutal killings of American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff. Based on events like this, it's understandable that outlet have become more hesitant to send correspondents to war zones. According to a more recent article published in 2016, now it's almost entirely up to Syrians to fill this void through bearing whatever kind of witness they can. Considering news outlets may refrain from using their costly means of "being there".
Aside from the fact that this may seem more relevant now, to bear-witness without the means of a mainstream media outlets is actually some what of a timeless concept.
In reviewing the rise of independent media though history it became abundantly clear. Lets just take Ida B. Wells as an example. After the lack of attention her train incident received, she decided to be her own witness. Not only did she being her own free witness start an entire publication, but was influential in abolishing discriminative laws. Even though this may not have been video, in those times it was essentially an equivalent. Even though she was technically an eyewitness, Wells experienced this herself, remembered in grave detail and was essentially her own livestream through memories another everyday passenger on the train may not have been able to provide in such detail.
Essentially, Huffungton's comments regarding the effect of new technologies redefining what we know as to "bear-witness" were spot on then, and only continue to prove their validity.
We have countlessly reiterated that it's the job of independent media outlets to hold mainstream media accountable, and it's funny that as soon as they do, the tactics and methods indy's use to acquire such truths somehow just don't have enough credibility.
The article was published in 2009 and it's interesting to note that today, essentially everything Huffington's last sentence highlighted is very very true. New media has given the opportunity for more and more independents to get things right, that the "elite few" either got wrong, didn't bother to explore, or even tired to cover up.
The article seems to be centered around the concept, to "bear-witness", and what that truly means. According to New York Times columnist Roger Cohen, "bear witness means being there — and that’s not free." Naturally Huffington slammed this idea, and boy does Cohen probably feel a little dumb right about now.
Not only did efforts of those who may not have "payed" to witness bring countless videos and photos and accounts from Iran and China, but more recently in Syria as well. In 2014 TIME published an article explaining how "the proliferation of social media reports cancels out the risks of relying on individual posts" Especially considering the risks of ground reporting were made too clear through the brutal killings of American journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff. Based on events like this, it's understandable that outlet have become more hesitant to send correspondents to war zones. According to a more recent article published in 2016, now it's almost entirely up to Syrians to fill this void through bearing whatever kind of witness they can. Considering news outlets may refrain from using their costly means of "being there".
Aside from the fact that this may seem more relevant now, to bear-witness without the means of a mainstream media outlets is actually some what of a timeless concept.
In reviewing the rise of independent media though history it became abundantly clear. Lets just take Ida B. Wells as an example. After the lack of attention her train incident received, she decided to be her own witness. Not only did she being her own free witness start an entire publication, but was influential in abolishing discriminative laws. Even though this may not have been video, in those times it was essentially an equivalent. Even though she was technically an eyewitness, Wells experienced this herself, remembered in grave detail and was essentially her own livestream through memories another everyday passenger on the train may not have been able to provide in such detail.
Essentially, Huffungton's comments regarding the effect of new technologies redefining what we know as to "bear-witness" were spot on then, and only continue to prove their validity.
Independent media has to get around obstacles mainstream media creates, and through the use of the internet have officially charged through one of the biggest. The days of the elite few hiding behind "The Man" are officially over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)