The media plays an undeniable role in our everyday life. This role can be positive as well as negativesometimes, technology is used to bolster public support against a minority, as in Californias controversy regarding Proposition 8. Other times, technology can bring an issue to life that people have overlooked, such as Darfur. Without technology, a country is effectively a blank spot on the global mapand yet on the individual level, access to things such as broadband internet are still not considered a human rightfor good reason.
While it is more of a series of events rather than a single event, one of the most prominent media events of this century has been the ongoing saga of Californias Proposition 8. The propositions success hinged on a no-holds barred media campaign that came just shy of declaring that all homosexuals were pedophiles, and that the institution of gay marriage was a direct threat to children. That event alonethe use of mass media to stir the populace into rescinding the rights of a minority group in the name of moralitywould have been major enough, had it ended there.
However, there is currently a trial being held to determine the validity of Proposition 8. At the behest of its supporters, media coverage of the trial has been blocked in fact, the most up-to-the-minute updates are coming from those liveblogging from within the courtroom. Though the saga is ongoing, it illustrates the double-edged sword that is mass media coverage. It is easy to foment the majority against a minority by exploiting human feelings against The Other. However, that same coverage can hurt its original proponents when it involves questioning the rhetoric of hate and oppression.
When making a case for The Other, it is important to be innovative in your approach the subject of Darfur is a major example. Two of the major innovations of United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on Darfurs website are its definition of genocide, as well as its invitation to interactive involvement. Regarding the definition of genocide, the site does not limit itself to the traditional idea of genocide (which is outright murdering the majority of a group), but accounts for a kind of cultural genocide as well, in the form of preventing births and transferring certain populations to new locations. It is a sobering thought, of course, because by this definition America was most definitely involved in the genocide of Native Americans. This shift in perspective is an important way of getting people to re-examine Darfur, if not examine it for the very first time.
The other primary innovation is the use of Google Earth to present a fuller scope of the tragedy to users. As a rule, horrible things are usually abstracted in a persons mind, lest they stare so long into the abyss that it stares back at them. Therefore, something as snubbed by mainstream media as Darfur needs to be brought to life interactive maps and photos of burning villages are certainly a vivid way to do that.
Of course, if technology is so important for making a case for human rights, it begs to the question as to whether access to the internet and other technologies is itself a human right, and whether the global digital divide means that such a right is being suppressed. The global digital divide is simple shorthand to describe the dearth of access to the internet and other technological innovations in underdeveloped nations. One of the primary ways that it plays into media coverage is the old media adage, if it bleeds, it leads. While its true that the bulk of any nations news outlets will focus primarily on things of concern to that nation, human interest pieces engage people by appeals to a kind of universal pathos. Things such as Haitis recent earthquake can be examined and mourned by people with no real connection to the place, save for the general empathy necessary to process the story.
Of course, if a tragedy isnt big enough to warrant attention from other countries, and the nation itself severely lacks access to the internet, then theres less ways of getting the story out there. This effect feeds upon itself, of course something that stays out of mainstream attention for a while (such as Darfur) will have that much more difficulty getting into the popular public consciousness. This is magnified by ongoing crises, toowhen asked, someone only vaguely aware of Darfur may callously respond with oh, thats still going on Ongoing tragedy is never reported in an ongoing manner by international presses a nation lacking in technological development, then, is hard pressed to convince others of the severity of their woes.
With that in mind, I still do not believe that internet access should be considered a human right. Part of Finlands argument (the first country to claim that broadband access is, indeed, a human right) is that it is necessary to bring something as essential as a bank to citizens in rural areas. However, turning that example around, I do not believe that if I or anyone else intentionally moved to somewhere as far away as I could from populated areas, that any bank would be obligated to build a location near me. I would simply accept the difficulty of bank access the same way I would accept the difficulty of getting to my favorite fast food jointall part of the package of living in relative isolation.
Additionally, if this were considered a human right, what would the legal consequences of depriving someone of it be Would prisoners not need constant access to the internet Would children not be able to sue their parents for unplugging the computer Those questions sound absurd even as they are asked, but if internet access is placed in the spectrum of actual needs as mandated by the law, then I could no more take a computer away from Charles Manson as I could starve him to death. Unless we are ready to take parents who unplug their children from World of Warcraft to court for child neglect, I think that internet access should remain what it already is a convenience, not a right.
We have seen the changing role of technology with regard to media applications. It can be used to rally public support, even behind negative agendas such as Proposition 8. It can be used to bring overlooked tragedies to startling life. Without it, a country cannot make its case before the world. Our first decade into the 21st century, one thing is abundantly clear technology and the media have become a part of our world, for better or for worse.
While it is more of a series of events rather than a single event, one of the most prominent media events of this century has been the ongoing saga of Californias Proposition 8. The propositions success hinged on a no-holds barred media campaign that came just shy of declaring that all homosexuals were pedophiles, and that the institution of gay marriage was a direct threat to children. That event alonethe use of mass media to stir the populace into rescinding the rights of a minority group in the name of moralitywould have been major enough, had it ended there.
However, there is currently a trial being held to determine the validity of Proposition 8. At the behest of its supporters, media coverage of the trial has been blocked in fact, the most up-to-the-minute updates are coming from those liveblogging from within the courtroom. Though the saga is ongoing, it illustrates the double-edged sword that is mass media coverage. It is easy to foment the majority against a minority by exploiting human feelings against The Other. However, that same coverage can hurt its original proponents when it involves questioning the rhetoric of hate and oppression.
When making a case for The Other, it is important to be innovative in your approach the subject of Darfur is a major example. Two of the major innovations of United States Holocaust Memorial Museum on Darfurs website are its definition of genocide, as well as its invitation to interactive involvement. Regarding the definition of genocide, the site does not limit itself to the traditional idea of genocide (which is outright murdering the majority of a group), but accounts for a kind of cultural genocide as well, in the form of preventing births and transferring certain populations to new locations. It is a sobering thought, of course, because by this definition America was most definitely involved in the genocide of Native Americans. This shift in perspective is an important way of getting people to re-examine Darfur, if not examine it for the very first time.
The other primary innovation is the use of Google Earth to present a fuller scope of the tragedy to users. As a rule, horrible things are usually abstracted in a persons mind, lest they stare so long into the abyss that it stares back at them. Therefore, something as snubbed by mainstream media as Darfur needs to be brought to life interactive maps and photos of burning villages are certainly a vivid way to do that.
Of course, if technology is so important for making a case for human rights, it begs to the question as to whether access to the internet and other technologies is itself a human right, and whether the global digital divide means that such a right is being suppressed. The global digital divide is simple shorthand to describe the dearth of access to the internet and other technological innovations in underdeveloped nations. One of the primary ways that it plays into media coverage is the old media adage, if it bleeds, it leads. While its true that the bulk of any nations news outlets will focus primarily on things of concern to that nation, human interest pieces engage people by appeals to a kind of universal pathos. Things such as Haitis recent earthquake can be examined and mourned by people with no real connection to the place, save for the general empathy necessary to process the story.
Of course, if a tragedy isnt big enough to warrant attention from other countries, and the nation itself severely lacks access to the internet, then theres less ways of getting the story out there. This effect feeds upon itself, of course something that stays out of mainstream attention for a while (such as Darfur) will have that much more difficulty getting into the popular public consciousness. This is magnified by ongoing crises, toowhen asked, someone only vaguely aware of Darfur may callously respond with oh, thats still going on Ongoing tragedy is never reported in an ongoing manner by international presses a nation lacking in technological development, then, is hard pressed to convince others of the severity of their woes.
With that in mind, I still do not believe that internet access should be considered a human right. Part of Finlands argument (the first country to claim that broadband access is, indeed, a human right) is that it is necessary to bring something as essential as a bank to citizens in rural areas. However, turning that example around, I do not believe that if I or anyone else intentionally moved to somewhere as far away as I could from populated areas, that any bank would be obligated to build a location near me. I would simply accept the difficulty of bank access the same way I would accept the difficulty of getting to my favorite fast food jointall part of the package of living in relative isolation.
Additionally, if this were considered a human right, what would the legal consequences of depriving someone of it be Would prisoners not need constant access to the internet Would children not be able to sue their parents for unplugging the computer Those questions sound absurd even as they are asked, but if internet access is placed in the spectrum of actual needs as mandated by the law, then I could no more take a computer away from Charles Manson as I could starve him to death. Unless we are ready to take parents who unplug their children from World of Warcraft to court for child neglect, I think that internet access should remain what it already is a convenience, not a right.
We have seen the changing role of technology with regard to media applications. It can be used to rally public support, even behind negative agendas such as Proposition 8. It can be used to bring overlooked tragedies to startling life. Without it, a country cannot make its case before the world. Our first decade into the 21st century, one thing is abundantly clear technology and the media have become a part of our world, for better or for worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment