Unbound Edition - Digital Flag Burning

Are Americans immune to protesting? Do we have so much access to media and information that we have become numb and disaffected? This post is not meant to spark a political debate…but it likely will.

I think the story about Cindy Sheehan giving up her protest has roots that extend beyond politics to the power of digital media. A friend and I recently engaged in a debate regarding Cindy’s decision.

I see this as a story about how people today are listening and acting when it comes to things with which they are unhappy. My friend questioned where the protests of the ’60s were – the flag burnings and the walk-outs. I think people do care, and are not numb to the media overload. In fact, I feel that more than ever, people are expressing their opinions…but they are doing so on the Web. Just because their stories and opinions don’t make the 6 p.m. news doesn’t mean that they aren’t expressing themselves or being heard.

Today, WE are the media, covering our own protests. Just look at MoveOn.org, Daily Kos and the video of the first 12 hours of the Wikipedia article documenting the Virginia Tech massacre.

My friend then posed the question of whether or not the Internet is as effective as staging a march. Really, though, how many people does a protest touch without the help of the media? 15,000 on a large campus if they are lucky? Instead, protestors are relying on the media to carry their message. I think the larger question becomes whether or not traditional media is more effective than digital media. My answer is no, but I am anxious to hear your thoughts.

viva la e-volution
written by josemocha, June 12, 2007 09:07 AM

you are right. people are taking to the web, if not the streets. a little, local effort can get global awareness and support this way. my worry is the web might seem to be "less real" than disrupting traffic or blocking the steps to the capitol. for me, the question is how to use the web to galvinize LOTS of people to show up for an "offline" protest. leverage the web. get a huge crowd. then coverage from traditional media and blogs, so it is all one big circle.

It Takes Time
written by RJBoy888, June 12, 2007 09:41 AM

While I think it is great the Internet has provided everyone an outlet to voice their own opinion and share ideas with others, I also think the message being shared can get lost within circles. Take a chat room for example, generally chat rooms are a great way to spark a debate, but all the information shared dies in the chat room. In a case of a blog, the audience can sometimes be limited to only those with the same view, closing off the message to the general public.

In time, I think there will be ways to reach the broader spectrum of readers. There will be a way to bring your message to others, rather than others having to search for your message, which I think is the way now.

jedes Herz ist eine revolutionäre Zelle
written by Jan, June 12, 2007 09:48 AM

It's a tricky question about the Internet's role in contemporary protest. When asked why students aren't staging more public demonstrations, the consistent answer is "Too busy!". The internet allows the truly passionate to take on leadership capacity, while the 'too busy' add themselves to a mailing list, 'sign' a petition or engage in a paragraph-long bitch session between classes or during lunch.

We're too dependent on the security and stability of our routine days to leave them in committed protest. Internet as a space for protest allows us to safely remain in our familiar routines, while still 'voicing an opinion.'

Internet as a tool for protest, though, can be quite effective. Reference the immigration reform protests from last year http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_United_States_immigration_reform_protests, which used internet sites like Facebook and MySpace to mobilize. This was an effective use of the sites as tools for protest, not forums for protest. Media coverage was crucial in spreading the news of the marches across the nation - particularly the LA march on May 25 - but internet sites were essential as mobilizing tools.

In a world where too many 'err on the side of caution' (mass media included), the passionate need to inspire dissent, rather than allow others to report on it. Internet seems like one of those 'safe' places to voice dissent. There's no feeling that you'll get in trouble for it; but, I believe that's because there's no real belief that anyone's going to read it! "If a tree falls in the forest..."

Will we see the nation-wide protests of the sixties again? God, I hope so. Can we use the Internet to help us get there? Definitely. Is digital media more effective than traditional media as a tool for protest? No, not yet. Perhaps not at all.

Reaching the right people?
written by AMN, June 13, 2007 11:28 AM

The internet has certainly banded together millions of people through central news sites, blog posts, internet protest campaigns built to have petitions signed online and raise awareness - but is everyone being reached? An eternal question, but in this age we expect that ALL people have access to the internet - or rather those who are using the internet only to campaign for their cause are expecting that all people they'd like to reach have access to the internet, when it may be those people who don't have access to this medium that are most affected and would be most likely to contribute to grassroots campaigns that effect them or their lifestyle.

I agree with Jan's notion that we can use the internet to gain momentum and that only when we see a conglomeration of mediums - internet, TV, print, radio - will the total populus be reached. Is the internet a cost-effective way to spread the news? Yes. Can anyone post on the internet and gain an audience? Yes. Now to just get the attention of those people who make the decisions about telling the rest of the world via other mediums...