First off, I wish Professor Dean did not post the article criticizing movements.org because it framed how I should interpret this website. After reading the article I went to the website with a bias and found myself exploring the pages with the intention of finding something “sketchy.” The blank slate I was prior to reading the article was tainted and I no longer had the non-bias attitude.
As I analyzed the website I noticed the group focused on the use of new media/technology (Twitter, Facebook, & Flickr) as a way to reach out to youth, which I believe is a smart idea since technology is the best way to reach younger people in this new digital era. It also was somewhat reminiscent of the Obama campaigns’ tactic to reach out to youth. I found it interesting that the website was written with a “fighting voice” because I viewed it as another tactic used to mobile people and get them energized. As I read the blogs and subtitles I found myself really intrigued by what they were saying, I felt as if I should be about of this movement. Additionally, I noticed words that have the ability to motive such as, awareness, free; build, change, and networking were enlarged in word clouds.
When I looked at the summits I noticed they had very popular people such as Whoopi Goldberg, Hillary Clinton, and that guy who co-founded Facebook in attendance at these summits. This was another great tact because a lot of young people look at these individuals as role models and if they see their role models supporting what appears to be a good cause then they will too. As a fan of Whoopi Goldberg when I saw that she—someone who is an advocate for social justice—supported the group, it in a sense validated what they were doing.
In addition to this I noticed that the people who are in charge of the group appear to be young up-to-date individuals (they all had twitter accounts). I viewed this as a way to appeal to their audience because it is well known that young people would not be interested in a group that was ran by people who appeared to be old. To be honest I found this group to be pretty cool and I did not see the things the article criticized them for.
**On a side note I discovered the company was founded in San Diego, California. The name I got for the founder of the website was “Privacy Service” and the email address was “privacy@emailaddressprotection.com” which is weird because the website claims the founders are Jared Cohen, Joe Liebman, and Roman Tsunder so why would they try to hide it. However, I did find a number: (619)393-2111 but I did not call it.
I think the point is that you wouldn't notice anything sketchy; you are validating the opinion of the critiquer by your review. My cat could have a Twitter account, that doesn't mean that he's hip or that he isn't a cog in a giant corporatist scheme, and you have to remember that people don't necessarily have to see themselves as taking part in something potentially misleading to be taking part in it. That was the whole point. Grassroots campaigns do not have corporate underwriters... the idea is that the message appears to be driven by youth, but as you've pointed out, they are appealing to the youth as a strategy for their own ends; I would call that exploitation, not engagement.
ReplyDeleteInteresting Shane. Because when I first saw the website having not read anything critical about, I did not notice anything "sketchy." I was therefore confused as to why I had been directed to Movements.org.
ReplyDeleteI am wondering, Shane, if the discussion in class led you to change your mind a bit. Do you think the US government should work with corporations to bring down foreign governments?
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, I never said in class nor in my blog post the US should work with corporations to bring down foreign governments. In fact I believe the US needs to figure out how to solve the problems at ‘home’ before trying to act as the world police (i.e. like what they are doing in Libya) which is something I argue in every class that touches on US intervention in forgein affairs. Before Brian went on his emotional rampage, I was simply saying I did not find anything wrong with the website when I searched through it and to point out that reading the article before viewing the website framed how I will interpret it. I took issue with Brian acting as if this website is the sole reason for everything evil in the world and the claim he made that “the youth are being exploited and these corporations do not [give a shit] about anyone else except for money” which is what Brian admitted post “er” was not the right way to phrase it. As I stated in class and on my blog, using technology to reach out to youth is not exploitation. If I am not mistaken the Obama campagin did it—(in the words of Brian)“for their own ends,” so why is that not considered exlpoitation? Why open the door for one and close the door on the other?
ReplyDeleteok--this gives me a better sense of where you are coming from.
ReplyDeleteI would say that a political campaign is not and should not be considered the same as a corporate advertising campaign. Political campaigns are (at least ideally) part of a democratic process through which the public governs itself in terms of the public good.
A corporation is an entity that seeks to make profits in order to enhance shareholder value.
So Obama is not the same as a corporation. The former is trying to mobilizing voters. The latter is trying to sell products.