Activist Media Week 1 Readings
Foreword: What is media activism?- Lance Bennett
Digital media brought a new era in activism
Not a magic bullet
Downside: public nature leads to surveillance
Upside: large networks are difficult to shut down
Media activism also critiques the nature and accessibility of media
Older activists prioritize structure and leadership, newer activists have less centralization
Trump is a strong example of media activism (possible annotation about propaganda)
Media activism needs mroe theoretical structure
Looking Back, Looking Ahead: What Has Changed in Social Movement Media since the Internet and Social Media?- Downing
Technological development linked to cultural shifts
Video activism started in the 70s
Past media activists struggled with distribution
Social movement as evangelicism
FBI targeted activist media producers, charged them w/ things like pornography
Development of video tapes was monumental, but still were bicycle distributed
Late 80s- Deep dish allowed for local activists to broadcast their media
Connective digital media allowed spread before government took notice
Connective media is an additive, not a substitute
Barriers to connective media: access to computers, language, cell towers, state censorship
Rapid mobilization still needs organization
Media can help debate and determine policy goals
Telecom infrastructure is privately owned or state owned, leading to increased risk of surveillance
Most people use 4G phones which can easily distribute media instantateously
I liked this quotation because it points out that media activism doesn't always promote positive change and social justice. Activism involves the advocacy for a cause, but that cause could be anything from climate change to the Jewish space laser conspiracy theory. This makes me wonder what the role misinformation and propaganda have in activist media. Activists promote a certain viewpoint, which may or may not be supported by evidence. In other cases, activist issues revolve around moral conflicts, meaning that they can't be proved correct without a universal moral standard. Activist media could promote factually wrong information, like the existence of Jewish space lasers causing wildfires, or differing viewpoints on issues like surrogacy. In the latter case, there are several valid perspectives on the issue depending on your personal moral values, so it's difficult to determine an absolute truth. Is there a difference between misinformation and activist media? The readings for this week mention a perception of media activism as a "David vs Goliath" fight, which makes me wonder if government propaganda can be considered activist media. This article states that Trump's campaigns are an example of activist media, but what about Soviet propaganda? Does the designation shift from when the creators are revolutionaries versus when they gain political control of a nation? Finally, this makes me wonder about whether terrorist organizations can create activist media. Terrorist organizations can clearly create media and engage in acts to promote their cause, but do their violent methods exclude them from the field of activist media? Does activist media need to promote acts, or can they inspire fear and repression? Overall, this solidifies the idea that while media activism is a powerful tool, it may not always benefit society.
/
9/11 Class Notes
Next Thursday: Class at AAC for a masterclass with Gustavo Arellano
Revolution is more popular than both protest and activism, activism at the lowest
Use of activism is rising
Huge spike in revolution in the 70s
Hierarchy of use: civil society, activism, NGO
Activism spiked in the 70s and 90s
Civil society spiked in the early two thousand
Move towards nonviolent or palatable terms over revolution
Activism: citizens’ political activities ranging from high-cost, high-risk protests and revolutionary movements to everyday practices aimed at protecting the environment and to corporatized NGO activism
Activism has shifted from radical and revolutionary action to moderate civic action
Can be in service of the nation-state or oppsoing it