The readings were kind of all over the map for today, but the best amalgamation of the topics and points brought up in these readings is that tactical media is essentially a guerilla war. You make do with the tools at your disposal and target an enemy larger than you. But now the larger and very open ended question is just who is this enemy? Mainstream media, public perception, power elite. All seem likely targets for the wrath of tactical media.
Using the tools at your disposal.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I couldn’t stop thinking about Macguyver through the chapter on Gambiarra. The point was clearly to show how technology and media can be utilized differently than their original goal to produce a unique effect.
This sort of reminded me of a low-tech youtube. What is the original purpose of youtube? Whatever the answer to the question is irrelevant, since the original intention of the medium is now obsolete to the use of it. Some people post op-ed pieces. Others make funny narratives or skits. Some post television shows that they like. There is no wrong way to use Youtube. The users have made it their own, and maybe that was the original intent.
Using a radio strapped to a bike to spread an opinion is undoubtedly a less effective strategy than having a syndicated radio show, but it’s still useful in that a message is being spread, albeit on a more limited scale. You can spread the word with the tools you have, limited as they may be.
Perspective and tone. Fighting fire with fire.
We’ve already discussed the Jon Stewart incident in class, so I won’t waste time reiterating it, but there are two elements that I want to bring up. Firstly, the nature of satire and why it is or isn’t effective. In college, I was the editor of a satirical newspaper called the Spartan Weekly. I told my writers often that the difference between parody and satire is that parody winks to the camera to tell the audience it’s all a joke, whereas satire takes itself seriously and never breaks character. In satire, you want people to think you’re crazy to illustrate the point of just how crazy the truth can be.
One of the progenitors in modern satire was a piece called A Modest Proposal by Jonathon Swift in 1729. In this work, Swift proposes a solution to two problems in
The other point is that Stewart claims that media has become a puppet show, and here’s another example of it. Take a look at this clip of Christopher Hitchens on Hannity and Colmes a few days after the death of Jerry Falwell.
This was not a discussion, it was theater. Hitchens points out that he was only booked on the show to be attacked. They knew what he was going to say and wanted him to say it so that Hannity could act outraged and denounce him. This wasn’t about discourse, it was about performance.
So, when the enemy is the tone and demeanor of the news media itself, satire can be an effective tool. We have yet to see if Comedy Central is making a real impact in respect to changing the media, but we know they are doing a great job of rabble rousing. Time will tell if and how the media landscape is different because of their presence.
The internet as a rallying point.
Websites aren’t that hard to make these days, although I’d hardly call it easy either. But surfing the web, that’s a breeze. Whatever your pet cause, there’s a place out there for you, even if it’s repugnant. The creator of Stormfront, the ironically named Don Black, attests that his website isn’t about pushing an anti-black agenda, it’s about uniting behind the idea of being pro-white. It’s a rallying point for people of like beliefs. While I’m sure we’re all in agreement that this site is reprehensible, it does point out a larger trend emerging in the internet age. People of similar ideologies are much more easily mobilized, as they now have virtual places in which to convene. Before, people of certain interests and beliefs were limited in how they could interact with one another. Now, the physical boundaries are irrelevant and we can come together virtually for a cause, no matter how trivial or flat out insane. And there are some insane causes…
The Stormfront also points out another important note about the nature of tactical media. It’s aim is not necessarily someone or something in a position of power. It can also be aimed at the public perception of that power. To use an example, prior to blogging, the perception in respect to the media was that if the media brought it up, that’s the news that we need to keep on eye on. The media was there to tell us what was important. But with the blogosphere in place, stories that got little to no traction in the mainstream media are finding new life. Of course not every story impacts as strongly as if it were to air on 60 Minutes, but now they at least have a fighting chance. Before, a power elite told us what was important. Now we can decide for ourselves. The bigger picture, though, is that we start to understand how and why the mainstream media chooses their stories. We see hints of corporate bias for their advertisers, and not wanting to irk certain political figures. We see them jump from one knee jerk reaction story to the next, and show videos of drunken celebrities, followed by an op ed piece about how shameless it is to cover drunken celebrities. In essence, the new emergence of alternative and tactical media are showing us that the emperor was naked all along.
So there you have it; we have the ability to modify technology to suit our pet causes, websites to rally our agents, satirists to chip away at the mainstream and an unprecedented access to knowledge. So why are people still so uninformed? (start watching at 2:30)
I liken the growth of internet based media to the changing demographic of people who play video games. In the early eighties, games were thought of as a children’s medium that few adults indulged in, and that was true. The perception of gamers as children stayed constant in the media, but it missed the fact that these kids who were playing video games as children grew up over the last twenty years, and they didn’t stop playing video games. Now the largest demographic is young adults. Media works in the same way. It’s not exactly a secret that the younger generation is embracing the change, while the older one is either ignorant to the shift, or resistant to it. This may sound callous, but eventually the older people will die off and the younger generation rising to take its place is already integrated with the new media. If traditional media and power elite don’t understand that, than no wonder they’re losing their grip.
Questions:
How is tactical media different from alternative media?
Tactical media allows people to rally and congregate virtually for their causes, but could a case be made that this is a negative trait, since it dilutes the advocacy and makes it harder for one cause or group to stand out?
Is it also possible that many of these advocacy sites simply increase the volume of armchair advocates, or simply rally people behind an idea that they already believe? To phrase it another way, is reading the Huffington Post as a leftist really just the same as watching Bill O’Reilly as someone on the right?
Realistically, how can we expect the media landscape to change as a result of satirical news shows like the Daily Show? Will they instigate a real change?
Is the public sphere disappearing and the virtual landscape taking its place?
In this, the information age, it’s easier than it’s ever been to spread information, but by the same token, it’s just as easy to spread disinformation as well. Could this be seen as negating the positive effects of digital media? What if disinformation is used to bring a positive change?
If news shows have essentially become a form of theater, as evidenced by Stewart and the Hannity clip, why is it allowed to continue as the public becomes increasingly aware of it? Couldn’t the answer be in regards to these shows and punditry in general that we know, but we don’t care?
If what we think of now as alternative media becomes mainstreamed, what will be the alternative to that?
Why in this information age, is it still so easy to spread disinformation or distort the truth? Does the fault lie with the message makers, the media, or us as the public?
Many of these chapters discussed the rise of media, either mainstream or citizen made, in isolated or ignored regions. Does the impact of a mass message carry more weight in these regions, due to the lack of opposing viewpoints?
It’s been said that, “the medium is the message.” With that in mind, is it reasonable to assume that a loud speaker hobbled together from old radio parts could have greater impact than a national radio show?
No comments:
Post a Comment