In my Propaganda, Media and American Politics class this semester, we have been dissecting and analyzing media sources from U.S. publications to international reporting. A good portion of the class is learning about the media portrayal of the wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan, both domestically and internationally. From what we’ve discussed in my Propaganda class, there seems to be a consensus that most U.S. mainstream media sources tend to exclude opposition or confronting opinions about the systemic problems within our government. Yes, people criticize George Bush and Barack Obama openly and frequently. But it’s hard to find mainstream reports that really delve into the core issues, questioning why a particular president decided to wage war against a country with “weapons of mass destruction” when there really was no evidence of them existing, ever.
Well, there are a number of reasons for media bias and the exclusion of systemic dissent. Noam Chomsky discusses some of these contributing factors in his book “Manufacturing Consent”:
* The mainstream media sources are typically owned by few, large major corporations, which leads to similar coverage.
* Advertising, which is a big source of income for the media, forces media sources to appease their advertisers by not producing extreme or radical news.
* The sources mainstream journalists employ are typically the same corporate or government experts who give the same, “manufactured” responses.
So how can the average, ordinary person express his/her resistance to the government and its decision to wage war when he/she is confronted with high-profile government officials, huge corporations or advertisers? The 1960s proved that many ordinary people could come together and assert their opposition to the Vietnam War in the form of street protests and demonstrations. We recently watched a documentary about student protests against the Vietnam War called “Berkeley in the Sixties.”
The documentary followed the stories of student activists at the University of California, Berkeley standing outside army recruitment offices; sitting on train tracks (in front of moving trains, risking their lives); and protesting on the streets, flipping over cars and destroying fences. A student protester wore a construction hat during protests, he said, to prevent a “bashed head” from police officers who were trying to end the protests.
But, what really stuck with me, after viewing the documentary, was how ineffective all of these protests were. When students gathered outside recruitment centers, imploring potential soldiers to reconsider their decision to go to war, not one soldier budged. The protesters didn’t deter a single soldier.
I could not believe how unsuccessful these protesters were. They were willing to be struck by a fast-moving train, endure police beatings and face nasty remarks from the community. Yet, with all their hard work and determination, they still seemed unheard.
One big hindrance holding these protesters back was that the media tended to focus on the aggression, numbers and appearance of the protesters, not their message, so that they could sell more papers or lure more viewers on TV. The media, as we learned in my Propaganda class, really didn’t care about the protesters’ messages; it was all about documenting their appearance and militancy. That’s what increased readership and ratings.
So what can we do to overcome these boundaries and get our messages across and become more active participants in politics? Well, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga provides some insight into how an everyday, normal person can engage in the political scene in his book “Taking on the System.”
Zuniga argues that in order to achieve change or progress in this technologically developing generation, activists and protesters will have to circumvent these obstacles presented by mass media by employing new emerging sources of communication: online blogs and video-hosting sites like YouTube.
“We live in a world where there is no reason anyone should whine or complain that they are being shut out of the system. The tools are available to mount credible challenges to even the most entrenched of powers. Such efforts will always lack resources, and will mostly face well-funded, deeply entrenched foes, but innovative tactics and smart use of money can carry the day,” (240).
An example of ordinary people successfully using the tools available to them and participating in politics via the Internet is the Obama campaign’s online fundraising. According to the New York Times, Obama raised $36 million in January 2008, $4 million more than had originally been predicted. The story also said the campaign “brought in $28 million online, with 90 percent of those transactions coming from people who donated $100 or less.”
Through this online campaign, the average person was able to partake in the presidential election against “well-funded, deeply entrenched foes.” He/she didn’t need millions, thousands or even hundreds of dollars to participate either. They were able to support Obama by making small donations, thanks to the Internet and the tools it provides to everyone everywhere.
The Internet opens more doors for people to engage and participate in causes they might otherwise have been hesitant to join, like the violent street protests featured in “Berkeley.” By welcoming more people to participate, the Internet allows people to voice their dissent more directly to the public (through blogs, websites and YouTube videos) without having the mainstream media pick and choose what will sell more papers. In a blog, no one can distort, filter or disregard your own message.
And, the streets can only hold so many people. The Internet is limitless.
No comments:
Post a Comment