During the Muhlenberg Alumni Panel on civility and disobedience, a question was posed to the speakers- well less of a question and more of a rude statement- about why protests today do not seem to have much impact and why they seem to be so uninspired as compared to those of the 60’s. While I found that these points came across as rather asinine, his example of the Occupy Wall Street Movement and more importantly the panel’s responses, were what i found to be rather provocative.
The first speaker, Adrian Shanker, responded to the criticism of the Occupy Movement by saying, “Occupy was effective because it changed the conversation and it was intentionally not corralled.” The other speakers went on to talk about how this was a tactic to raise awareness and were in agreement that it was a success because it “changed the conversation”. Personally, I feel that we need to take a step back because out of the seemingly well educated crowd, all those that I spoke with did not know what this change in conversation was. If the main goal was to raise awareness and to get the rest of America talking about income inequality, then the three activists should not have been the only people in the room with a firm understanding of what Occupy accomplished or to even be able to articulate what it was.
I cannot dispute that great points were being made by the Occupy protesters, I just don’t know what they were. This is the problem with mass protests in our current society; we do not hear the voice of the protesters, if we hear a voice at all it is that of the media. It is hard to hear a clear narrative about current protests because it is constantly being distorted by the media. It has become clear that, to most of the country, a protest or a story is what the media coverage says it is. For me, it was almost surprising to hear the presenters talking about how the Occupy protesters were forming organisations, having meetings and eventually acted on these discussions after the movement. The media only shines its lense on the “disobedience” and sadly the message which that “disobedience” is trying to send is often overlooked.
In the article “The Zimmerman Acquittal Isn't about ‘Stand Your Ground’” By Scott Leimux, he argues that the media coverage swayed the conversation about the death of Trayvon Martin to the Stand Your Ground Law instead of Concealed Carry, where it should have been. In our culture it is hard to tell what information you should be listening to. This article highlights some of the issues with media coverage, yet then again, this article itself is an opinion and is trying to sway the conversation in his own way. No matter what angle you view a protest from there will be personal biases forced onto it and these biases shift the message to redefine what the protest means.
If we are to believe in protests as they are today, the only thing is to believe that any conversation is good conversation. Perhaps media coverage hurts the message that gets out of a protest like Occupy but it does get a message out. The first goal is awareness because it is that awareness that can breed action. I am still uncertain of the merits of protesting but- as the presenters already said- if it is used as one tactic in the overall struggle, then perhaps it can be successful.
No comments:
Post a Comment