Protest no matter how they are done is important for people to get out their message and help change the way people think and act. With that said I do believe that celebrity activism is less effective and defiantly less dangerous. Back when protests were about social change people would be out in the streets picketing with signs, burning flags etc to help get their message across. Now when celebrities’ protest they put together threw benefit concerts sure they help raise money for a cause but most of the people at the concert don’t care about the protest or the cause, they just want to sit around and watch their favorite band perform.
Though my next example might be little out there, but I feel like they hit the nail on the head for musical protests. South Park did an episode on when hippies took over South Park and made a huge hippy jam festival to “listen to music and fight the corporation.” Instead of doing anything and actually fighting the corporations, the hippies just sat around and smoked and did absolutely nothing but complain about the issue at had at hand. The point to this example is that even though they were there for a cause and supporting it all they really wanted to do was hook up and smoke. It’s the same with celebrity concerts, sure your there for the cause but are you there for the right reasons?
Protest are not to be there to listen to music and have fun, but to be out there on the front lines fighting for a cause. Like what Klein said, these celebrities are trying to reason and negotiate with political leaders. Protests are not about reasoning, they are about radical change in the government. For example with SB 1070 celebrities like Shakria, Rev Al Sharpton and Danny Glover all came to Arizona to reason with the governor and other law makers for them to reconsider and change SB 1070. Not a lot of people knew this was going on or if they did really didn’t care. What people really noticed and sparked everyone’s interest was that people were seeing these elaborate protests with people that numbered in the thousands. That brought the attention from people all around the United States and our own federal government
Defiantly these celebrity concert protests are a lot safer then a normal protest. Celebrities are able to hide behind their skills and use them to “fight the man.” By doing it this way you don’t risk getting arrested. You are able to use you skills to better get the word out, but you use the security of your skill set and I feel that will set up barriers between you and the audiences.
If Klein is right I think what’s the difference between today’s kids and the Vietnam War protesters is people are afraid. Klein makes a good point that with the internet people are able to blog about their feelings and their beliefs, but when it comes to the point to stand up and fight they back away like a scared puppy. I know online I used to talk a lot about my political beliefs, but when it came to protesting or standing up I was too afraid of the consequences to go to the protest. That has recently changed im becoming involved, but I understand why people are scared to stand up and say “hey I’m here, I’m not going anywhere and this is my beliefs.” People don’t want to risk getting in trouble fighting the man jail is a scary thing to people.
If Klein is wrong I feel that both Bono’s poverty fight and Pam Andersons PETA battle have a very strong chance of being some of the more powerful protest groups. With Bono’s charity concerts he is helping raise money to fight poverty. Also with Pam Andersons stardom she has raised countless of millions of dollars for PETA to help fund and stop animal abuse. Even though protest are about spreading the word and changing the governments mind, money is important as well to help spread the word. They can help you get T.V. commercials, buses to protest events and actually provide aid to the people you are trying to protect. Money is important in today’s world and protester are now relaying on these other avenues to help get there message out there.
I myself am a protester for gun rights for law abiding citizens. I used to be one who would just sit around and talk about it with friends and post my feelings on Facebook and Myspace. Through this process I met other people like me but none of us really did anything about it. We then found web sites that had a list of protest and other events to help spread the word that not everyone who carries guns are criminals. We do things like open carry dinner nights to show restaurants how much business they are losing by not allowing gun owners in their establishments. We do open carry park clean ups to show the community that gun owners are just like you and are trying to make the community a better place and so on and so forth. Through this process we helped get people on our side for gun rights and help pass certain gun laws. We have also lobbied to restaurants to remove the no gun signs in their window which a lot of them have complied and some places tell me that they have seen no rise or fall in violence since the sign has been removed. We have changed anti gun owner’s minds about people who carry guns, and some now even own and carry guns of their own. My point to that is we could have easily sat behind our computers, complaining about how guns laws are restricting us and made fundraisers to help the cause but it wouldn’t have changed anything. Like Klein said to see improvements you have to be out there showing people who you are and what you believe in. Sure we might have gotten the same results down the road from just talking online, but if you want to see results now I feel that you need to get out there now and do something about it. Don’t let life pass you by.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Text-Based Assignment #3
The media today are becoming more worried about their ratings and their opinions then actually reporting the facts. Media outlet sources such as Fox News tend to lean more towards the republicans thinking. As a result they tend to report of flaws about President Obama’s agenda. While on the other side MSNBC tends to lean more towards the liberal way of thinking and for example they will typically report on the good things on President Obama’s agenda and his way of thinking. Another thing is most media outlets care only about their ratings and money they make if they have higher ratings. They state they only report the facts, but they tend to only report certain facts or present the facts in a way that could be misleading. It seems like the more violent a new story is the more attention it will get.
On page 333 Gitlin was talking about the student group, Students for a Democratic Society. The Students for a Democratic Society was a group of students that got together on college campuses in the late 1960’s and protested the Vietnam War. The Students for a Democratic Society led marches against the Vietnam War all over the United States and United Kingdom, some of which had over 25,000 anti war supporters.
What Giltin means by “The observer changed the position of the observed” on page 333 is that the media will typically change a news story to benefit the news station. For example if a peaceful protest was happening and it so happened that two people out of a group of a thousand got into a fight, the media will most likely just report on the fight and how violent the protest was and not the actual protest itself. The news is suppose to reflect the news as its happening but now its turning into a see thru mirror because instead of them showing you what’s actually happening, they are showing you what they want you to see. Also no matter what you might think if the protesters know they are being watched by the media they might act a certain way and change how they would typically act if the media wasn’t there. For example a peaceful protest might turn violent in the presence of the cameras to help get their message and point across. I know at my job when I had the media following me at my job for a few days I acted according to policy and didn’t go into the gray area like I typically would.
One movement that I have followed both before this class and still to this day is the Arizona Immigration battle. At first the violence was contained in Mexico with the drug cartels fighting amongst themselves. Now, the violence is starting to spill over into Arizona, causing Arizona residents to feel unsafe in certain parts of Arizona’s deserts. With the increasing number or border bandits wondering the Arizona desert robbing illegal’s who are attempting to cross the border to robbing the drug mules hauling dope across the border. The violence is no literally in our back yard but the federal government does nothing to stop it. They post signs in the desert warning people to stay out because there are armed drug cartel in the area thinking this will solve the problem.
Finally, upset with how the Federal Government was handling the border issue Arizona decided to pass their own law to battle illegal immigration. The bill that most people know about is titled Senate Bill 1070, or SB 1070 for short. These laws made it if you were stopped by a Law Enforcement Official for committing a crime and during questioning if they have resizable suspicion that you are in the country illegally they have the right to ask for proper documentation. If you cannot provide proper documentation they will charge you with a crime and deport you back to your home country. With that people thought that Arizona was racist and this law was going to lead to racial profiling.
The media caught this story and created a war against Arizona. They painted Arizona as racist causing other states to hate and protest against us. They media would only show the anti SB 1070 protesters because they were more loud and violent. They were burning Arizona State flags, changing themselves to the capitol doors preventing people from entering and exiting the building. They had illegal immigrants holding signs stating that they are afraid to leave there house now. They were watching Sheriff Joe doing his immigration round ups calling him a racist and this bill is giving him too much power etc. This made great news for the media outlets. What they didn’t show or tell you about is the 70% of people who actually supported the bill, not just in Arizona but around the U.S. The pro SB 1070 people were also holding protest, but they were never on the news or had little coverage, because they weren’t good news stories for the media to cover. They weren’t showing you videos of the illegal’s trashing our desert on the way over. They didn’t show videos of drugs being smuggled over using stolen cars that were stolen inside the United States. All the media wanted to show you were a bunch of angry people protesting Arizona and calling Arizona racist. The media needed to go back to how it was and do fair reporting and actually show both sides of the argument.
On page 333 Gitlin was talking about the student group, Students for a Democratic Society. The Students for a Democratic Society was a group of students that got together on college campuses in the late 1960’s and protested the Vietnam War. The Students for a Democratic Society led marches against the Vietnam War all over the United States and United Kingdom, some of which had over 25,000 anti war supporters.
What Giltin means by “The observer changed the position of the observed” on page 333 is that the media will typically change a news story to benefit the news station. For example if a peaceful protest was happening and it so happened that two people out of a group of a thousand got into a fight, the media will most likely just report on the fight and how violent the protest was and not the actual protest itself. The news is suppose to reflect the news as its happening but now its turning into a see thru mirror because instead of them showing you what’s actually happening, they are showing you what they want you to see. Also no matter what you might think if the protesters know they are being watched by the media they might act a certain way and change how they would typically act if the media wasn’t there. For example a peaceful protest might turn violent in the presence of the cameras to help get their message and point across. I know at my job when I had the media following me at my job for a few days I acted according to policy and didn’t go into the gray area like I typically would.
One movement that I have followed both before this class and still to this day is the Arizona Immigration battle. At first the violence was contained in Mexico with the drug cartels fighting amongst themselves. Now, the violence is starting to spill over into Arizona, causing Arizona residents to feel unsafe in certain parts of Arizona’s deserts. With the increasing number or border bandits wondering the Arizona desert robbing illegal’s who are attempting to cross the border to robbing the drug mules hauling dope across the border. The violence is no literally in our back yard but the federal government does nothing to stop it. They post signs in the desert warning people to stay out because there are armed drug cartel in the area thinking this will solve the problem.
Finally, upset with how the Federal Government was handling the border issue Arizona decided to pass their own law to battle illegal immigration. The bill that most people know about is titled Senate Bill 1070, or SB 1070 for short. These laws made it if you were stopped by a Law Enforcement Official for committing a crime and during questioning if they have resizable suspicion that you are in the country illegally they have the right to ask for proper documentation. If you cannot provide proper documentation they will charge you with a crime and deport you back to your home country. With that people thought that Arizona was racist and this law was going to lead to racial profiling.
The media caught this story and created a war against Arizona. They painted Arizona as racist causing other states to hate and protest against us. They media would only show the anti SB 1070 protesters because they were more loud and violent. They were burning Arizona State flags, changing themselves to the capitol doors preventing people from entering and exiting the building. They had illegal immigrants holding signs stating that they are afraid to leave there house now. They were watching Sheriff Joe doing his immigration round ups calling him a racist and this bill is giving him too much power etc. This made great news for the media outlets. What they didn’t show or tell you about is the 70% of people who actually supported the bill, not just in Arizona but around the U.S. The pro SB 1070 people were also holding protest, but they were never on the news or had little coverage, because they weren’t good news stories for the media to cover. They weren’t showing you videos of the illegal’s trashing our desert on the way over. They didn’t show videos of drugs being smuggled over using stolen cars that were stolen inside the United States. All the media wanted to show you were a bunch of angry people protesting Arizona and calling Arizona racist. The media needed to go back to how it was and do fair reporting and actually show both sides of the argument.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Text Base Assingment #2
When it comes to the fight for both sides of the Universal Heath Care both sides have a frame for there movement. The anti Universal Health Care movement is predominantly made up of Republicans and Tea Party Activist. They use slogans such as the National Rife Associations “Don’t Tread on Me” while waving a flag that is consists of a snake coiled up getting ready to strike any of those threatens their way of life. With the saying “Don’t Tread on Me,” it means I have a way of believing and don’t mess with my beliefs and my ways of life or I will attack. The anti Universal health care people use speeches to show people how with the start of the healthcare bill is the start of the government trying to control us and our life. They believe that the government is using health care so they are able to make the people reliant on the government and train that that they cant function without the government aid. While the side for Universal Health Care use stories of people who are in poverty stricken areas, working jobs at minimum wage and are unable to pay for their healthcare. During Presidential campaign, President Obama used stories, such as Joe the Plumber, to show the struggle of a man who owns his own business and is barely making ends meet in this tough economy. By this story Pesident Obama was trying to pull on out heart strings and make us feel bad for Joe the Plumber so that way we would support him in universal health care. Both sides of the movement recruit heavily thru Facebook and other social networks. They also use media outlets such as Fox News and MSNBC to try and get the message out and for us to get to the rallies.
The Universal Healthcare debate is much like the Pro-life movement and Environmental movements because it seems to split the political parties. Just like the democrats tend to support the health care law and they tend to support both Pro-choice and stricter environmental laws. While Republicans and Tea Party Movement tend to be Pro-life and not in favor of both the healthcare and environmental regulations. I think both sides have a face for their Universal Healthcare debate. While the people who are for Universal Healthcare have President Obama and Nancy Pelosi for there face, while the against have Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Both sides do political talk shows and interviews while their side is right and try to gain support for their moments. Much like every social movement I feel that both sides use fear to attract and retain members. For example The Tea Party uses fear that the government is trying to control our lives and this is just the first step. They state that with healthcare the government is stripping us of our freedom of choice and limited government. With this it tends to bring members to join in support and helps keep them locked in. The same goes with the side for healthcare the government is trying to make people believe that insurance companies are bad people who are taking advantage of you and forcing you to pay an arm and a leg. They are trying to make you believe that without them regulating it that you will be taken advantage from the insurance company and pay more then you should.
The person who tends to be for Universal Healthcare is primarily people for the Democratic Party. Also people who are younger college students and people who are unable to get healthcare due to their job or lack of money tend to be in favor of Universal Healthcare. People against healthcare tend to be more republican and be tending to be older and established in their current carrier. They tend to be the working middle class who already have healthcare for their families through their job. People against tend to be white with no specific gender and religion.
Some consequences that I feel that both sides of my movement is that they are divided and not willing to corporate or change in any way. Both sides are fighting back and forth and not willing to sit down and do some give and take. Its either one side wants Universal Health Care or nothing at all. With this I feel that there is certain consequences that are coming up because some parts of the healthcare bill are needed while others might not be needed but both sides are not willing to negotiate causing the American people to split. I feel that the people who are in the middle of this debate that supports certain aspects of the healthcare bill and doesn’t support other parts are being excluded. There is rarely or non that I could find that are middle of the road in this healthcare debate and as a result these people are being excluded from the fight.
Unfortunately, both sides are framed the way they want to be and there is little hope to change them now. However I do believe if there is a group that would form that takes the best points from one side and the best points from the other I feel that this debate will see a real hope of ending the debate and the fight over healthcare.
The Universal Healthcare debate is much like the Pro-life movement and Environmental movements because it seems to split the political parties. Just like the democrats tend to support the health care law and they tend to support both Pro-choice and stricter environmental laws. While Republicans and Tea Party Movement tend to be Pro-life and not in favor of both the healthcare and environmental regulations. I think both sides have a face for their Universal Healthcare debate. While the people who are for Universal Healthcare have President Obama and Nancy Pelosi for there face, while the against have Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Both sides do political talk shows and interviews while their side is right and try to gain support for their moments. Much like every social movement I feel that both sides use fear to attract and retain members. For example The Tea Party uses fear that the government is trying to control our lives and this is just the first step. They state that with healthcare the government is stripping us of our freedom of choice and limited government. With this it tends to bring members to join in support and helps keep them locked in. The same goes with the side for healthcare the government is trying to make people believe that insurance companies are bad people who are taking advantage of you and forcing you to pay an arm and a leg. They are trying to make you believe that without them regulating it that you will be taken advantage from the insurance company and pay more then you should.
The person who tends to be for Universal Healthcare is primarily people for the Democratic Party. Also people who are younger college students and people who are unable to get healthcare due to their job or lack of money tend to be in favor of Universal Healthcare. People against healthcare tend to be more republican and be tending to be older and established in their current carrier. They tend to be the working middle class who already have healthcare for their families through their job. People against tend to be white with no specific gender and religion.
Some consequences that I feel that both sides of my movement is that they are divided and not willing to corporate or change in any way. Both sides are fighting back and forth and not willing to sit down and do some give and take. Its either one side wants Universal Health Care or nothing at all. With this I feel that there is certain consequences that are coming up because some parts of the healthcare bill are needed while others might not be needed but both sides are not willing to negotiate causing the American people to split. I feel that the people who are in the middle of this debate that supports certain aspects of the healthcare bill and doesn’t support other parts are being excluded. There is rarely or non that I could find that are middle of the road in this healthcare debate and as a result these people are being excluded from the fight.
Unfortunately, both sides are framed the way they want to be and there is little hope to change them now. However I do believe if there is a group that would form that takes the best points from one side and the best points from the other I feel that this debate will see a real hope of ending the debate and the fight over healthcare.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)