Scopat01 Seminar Papers
From digmovements
Contents |
[edit] Seminar Papers
[edit] Week One
We the Media Response The equilibrium of individual and community is an intriguing concept that has to be addressed in this digital world we are now pioneering and growing in. It is this very goal that is being transplanted into the outdated concept of the media and the audience. We the Media holds true the values of classic journalism and modern technology: The ability for ever person to become a more than a spectator, but a participant. Not only in the news they choose, but the news that others receive. Still, this has not, and will not, be met without a certain level of distrust, disdain, and fiery from “big media”.
Personally, the greatest issues for me involved first amendment rights and copyright issues. Dan Gilmore brings relevant cases of corporate copyright mongering to light. The amount of ease large lobbies like RIAA, MPAA, etc. to control government and regulatory opinion over copyright and fair-use court opinion or legislation is repulsive. Gilmour points out the concept of public domain has been eradicated and replaced with a system of All-Rights-Reserved copyright control. This is where communities, comprised of independent individuals, have to stand up and take a stand against corporate entities that want to reign the Internet.
A topic of much interest to me, Net Neutrality, was addressed in the book (even though it was not specifically mentioned). Comcast's attempts to buy Disney would obviously lead to a conflict of interest. The ability for these groups to direct traffic in a way that is profitable to the ISP itself is obviously a breach of the general publics interest and defies simple business ethics. The FCC's willingness to go along with phone/cable companies plans to privately own the infrastructure of something that is a public entity is shameful. What was even worse was phone/cables lobbies in state government preventing the town of Ashland, Oregon from setting up it's own network and have the municipality become the local Internet provider. Recently, after the release of this book, we saw more of the digital spectrum, that will be freed up after analog television signals come to a halt, put up for auction. Guess who were the big winners? Cable/phone companies. The hopes that Gilmour had for the potential of wireless technology to somehow stop these monopolies were crushed. There were some victories though. Google manage to win a significant portion of the spectrum. They plan to use to curb the power of these controlling monopolies power.
Its important to point out some of the changes that have already occurred since this book was completed. Metcalfe's law (pg. 160) is evident in our current world. In line with Gilmour predictions of the power of the Internet in the 2008 elections, we have seen new, and some times strange things, in the political realm. The Youtube debate (it's too bad this book wasn't written after the creation of Youtbue), the rise of Ron Paul, the attacks on Hillary, the blog commentary. The real political action is now taking place on the internet. Gilmour's worries of Internet “zoning” have become somewhat of a reality. A perfect example is the dilemma of Google.cn. There was a huge outrage among many on the Internet about Google filtering and editing its search due to pressure from the Chinese government. Despite the time that has passed since the creation of We the Media, it is still an extremely relevant work that manages to sort and put the proper perspective on the world of user generated content (and big media control). Gilmour says it best with, “Your voice matters, ...if you have something worth saying, you can be heard” (pg. 241).
I should also mention that this paper was written using an open source word processor.
[edit] Week Two
A Response to Social Movements, 1763 - 2004
Charles Tilly should consider rethinking the title of Social Movements, 1763 -2004. It is misleading. It should be named: A Brief History the Social Movements of 1848, 1968, and 1989 and Evolution of WUNC. The first half of the book made it seem like a standard chronological look at important time of social change and political revolution. It was a dull look: a detailed analysis of what. It seemed like the core concept of why was somehow lost until the second half of the book. I know there is the idea that you need to have the history to understand the situation, but a side-by-side look at the history next to the evolution and change would have been appreciated. Tilly's worries about whether certain events qualified as a social movements was so constant it became annoying. Still, Tilly managed to hit some high points and bring out some interesting ideas.
One especially interesting point concerned whether social movements lead to democratization (pg. 56). Tilly brings up scenarios where that was not the cases. Switzerland was a great example of democratization followed by social movement. I also enjoyed Tilly's introduction to 20th century changes and evolution in the use of social movements. His example of Father Coughlin (pg. 86) showed the power of one man become a figurehead for many populist ideas at the time.
The later portion of the book was somewhat of review. Much of the content it contained, was also in We The Media. Yet, it took a different perspective on the use of technology. Tilly presentation of the idea is accompanied with warnings. “Avoid technological determinism; recognize that most new features of social movements result from alterations in their social and political contexts rather than technical innovations as such.” (pg 98). This is extremely different look than Gillmor's. Yet, after some thought I do agree with it. Tilly manages to actually persuade that social phenomenon, like SMS and the Internet, just enhanced our capabilities but did not contribute to the evolution of new ideas. The internationalization of movements was a next leap in the punctuated evolution of our now global social movements.
Tilly is also one to point out the fact that there has been relapses in the process of greater democratization. If we are currently in one of these valley is a debatable thing. Still, Tilly's fight to continue democratization is a powerful thing. Without it, we could see another dark age.
[edit] Week Three
People's Movements, People's Press Response
The essential part of a movement: the press. The ability to spread information, to inform a gigantic region. When social movements elevate to a certain stage, press is sure to follow. Despite failures and feuds, social movement journalism has triggered, maintained, and reinvigorate countless causes.
Ostertag's choice of prominent America movements was focused. It could be said that Ostertag picked only liberal causes, but still they were very diverse cases. Osterag's coverage itself was one of the greatest part of the book. He managed to strike a balance between the history of the cause and the impact of the journalism. His look at specific characters in the evolution on these movements and their press was interesting. I am sure the people's histories by themselves would be entertaining enough, but Osterag wrote about them in almost a fictional sense, making it fun and exciting. While the book was a long shot from the technical social history that was covered in Charles Tilly's Social Movements, 1768-2004, I still felt it was a detailed read. There is no denying it was a more entertaining one. The relevancy of the issues and the look at the people might be what made it so interesting.
Again, this book managed to seem more personal and had a more specific individual look. I think it was fitting. These were such personal issues to so many people who organized newspapers and pamphlets about their chosen cause. It would be hard to ignore the individual. I think its interesting to point out just how personal these movements and issues were to their defenders and champions. The schisms, the fights, the stances were all seen. Former allies now became something else. They weren't quite enemies, but competition. Assorted woman's journals all fighting for the same audience, the schism between gays and lesbians are both good examples.
I think the most important thing to remember is that the press managed to bring people into a movement. The awareness of its presence itself is extremely powerful. Now we see that no social movement is complete unless it has an active and outspoken press to accompany it.
[edit] Week Four
Black Power and Relationships With Other Marginalized Identities
This response isn't quite a typical one. Reading about the Black power movement and the rise and fall of the Black Panthers was thought provoking to say the least. I admire the Black Panthers to be honest. They used violence in a powerful way (I am not saying violence is right or condoning acts of it in anyway). It was symbolic. The gun: a symbol, the means to control your own fate. Their image was so intense. Black people weren't asking changes; they were now making demands. But this isn't what I found so important. It was their relationship with other marginalized groups and their causes at the time. Specify, the Jews.
I wanted to write this out because rhetoric is what is so important here. I am going to try my best to look at this in analytical terms, attempting to avoid any language that could seem racist or could easily be misunderstood. During the struggle for abolition, many people used the Jews as a parallel to blacks in America at the time, partly because this story was in the most read book, the Bible. It was easy access and made it even easier to connect these struggles. Later, it became a different relationship. The Black Power was at its prime and it was now more than a quarter century since the start of the Holocaust. Point Three of the Ten Point Program of the Black Panthers specifically mentions the Holocaust and Israel. Yet, they marginalize it. Saying the struggle of black people in American was much more devastating. This point can be argued both ways, but its completely idiotic and irrelevant (and even in bad taste) to argue about what event was worse.
This obviously was a rocky time for Black-Jew relations. Black Muslim ideas were at their peak, corresponding with the black power movement. Diatribes targeted at Jews and Zionist were written in Black Panther periodicals. To this day, there is still a general distrust amongst these groups. Many Jewish-American groups won't back Obama because he is black and has a Muslim father.
Why is this so interesting? It because this relationship was almost non-existent before the Black Panther movement and Black Muslim rise. Zionism, the Holocaust, Black Power, Slavery. I now am extremely interested in looking at this relationship even more. I want to understand why it ended up this way. With these two identities that went through relatively similar situations. I should point out that during this exact time frame a group in Israel, named the Black Panthers was around as well. They were second generation Jewish Immigrants fighting against a massive poverty disparity.
I don't want to look at this as a marginalization of the Black Power movement at all. I want it to be noted that we cannot simply decided one specific historical catastrophe is worse than another. If any comparison is going to be done it should look at the similarity of the struggles. It shouldn't be looked at as a competition between identities and specific atrocious that occurred.
[edit] Week 5
Response to Art of Protest
The second half of Art of Protest left me with mixed feelings. More and more I am getting bored with readings. Not for the content exactly, but I am curious about the opposite side of the spectrum. I don't want to sound harsh, but we have been looking at the same liberal issues over and over again. In defense, every reading does shed new light onto the subject. Despite these comments, there still was a plethora of interesting information and quality writing.
First off, I want to touch on the format of this book. I feel like the reflection part should have been placed at the beginning. It would have been helpful to have these ideas already in the readers heads before we analyzed the reading ourselves. I felt much of writing was in a very cynical fashion, especially the portion on the Live Aid concerts. His anger was so evident. I do sympathize with him and understand his view. I feel it would have been a better read if he took a more apathetic approach. The actually information in that chapter was great though. It was a really interesting look at the failures of trying to appear helpful but in reality looking so patronizing.
The thing is, I just agree with so much of the writing. I know it’s extremely hard to find non- objective writing about these controversial topics. I would like to hear about the pro-life social movements and the other conservative social “revolutions”. This might be a subject looking into. The fact that so many of these conservative took ideas and tactics from the more liberal and progressive movements would be great comparison to look at.
During the process of writing this my opinion have already been shifted. Now I am eager to continue reading the next books. I know I've explicitly stated how much I didn't like Tilly's writing style, but now, I have so much appreciation for his look and analysis. I feel like how I have matured in the way I look at these books. Maybe matured isn't the right word. I think it's now just a completely new perspective.
[edit] Week 6
Response to Communication Revolution
I should have realized this the moment I picked up the book. Robert McChesney is one of the founders of FreePress, which is the group that maintains and runs Save The Internet. So much of this book was relevant to my research topic. Of course, I took great interest in his look at net neutrality and the corporate control of government policymaking, but I still have some problems with the first portion of Communication Revolution.
The last two chapters of Communication Revolution are by far the greatest resource I have encountered for my research project. I knew from the start that Net Neutrality would be mentioned somewhere in the book. The funny thing is, I am a little upset after reading his spiel about Net Neutrality. He used so many of the same sources I was planning to use and used the same argument I had prepared. This is where I want to talk about how I would differ from him. McChesney writing style was too livid, too personal, and sometimes annoying. I think it was wrong for him to state that this book was going to be, in part, an empirical look. I don't think its fair to call your book empirical simply because you cite court opinions. In his support he did offer an insider's look into a field that he claims is “disregarded”. Much of the first part of the book was filled with self-consumed rants trying to defend his profession. He makes claims that people in academia are obsessed with prestige yet goes on and on attempting to build his own prestige throughout the book. I am unfamiliar with the world of academic politics (besides from the little stories you have told us about other professors and their qualms with “e-learning”), but I think those belong in a separate book. If McChesney wants to be a champion for the communications field, he should do it with quality analysis and empirical writing, not by wasting two chapters and two hours of the reader’s time.
Still, I can manage to wade through his whining because when you hit the real content in this book it is great. The chapters Historical Turn and Moment of Truth were just what I've been waiting to read in this class. The stating of the Five Truths and his look at them was the books shining moment. Much of the truth were, by many, taken as a given, but McChesney looked at them from so many different vantages. Given, they were all liberal perspectives it was still extremely exciting to see the someone hit the nail on head so well. Truths 3, 4, and 5 were issues that I plan to address in detail in my topic paper.
Despite my problems with much of McChesney's writing, he manages to write the most relevant, well-constructed book we have read to date. I am happy to found a great book source to counter all my legal documents for my research topic. It's weird. Every time I find I hate the author’s writing style, he manages to deliver some of the best content.
