|From:||J B <email@example.com>|
|Sent time:||Sunday, November 06, 2011 12:35:19 PM|
|Subject:||Re: [GlobalRevolutionMedia] Livestream should not have filmed Oakland riot on Nov. 2|
As well as revealing that police were covering their badges and numbers. And that police forces from as far away as belmont (1 hr away) were present.
In terms of the message, isn't it "Occupy Wall Street (we are the 99%)"? More below.
On 11/6/2011 10:11 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:The solution is to be creating our own channels, shows and campaigns (internet, I'll be pitching a media project organizer handdrawn wireframes etc, and need help) like a campaign in response to the violence (clear insight, not necessarily opposition or defense), with a press release, conference, videos, twitter, and a website where the main page actually has some MESSAGE.Yes, is the voice inciting to riot (tune in, view, look at what the man is doing to the black blok) impartial? There are many, many voices and positions in the movement. Why broadcast that one?
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
From: J B <email@example.com>Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2011 12:32:03 -0500Subject: Re: [GlobalRevolutionMedia] Livestream should not have filmed Oakland riot on Nov. 2
These are actions that occurred. This movement is about transparency. My vision, which is shared by others, is that the livestream exists as a window into the movement. Our ability to editorialize is greatly diminished by livestream, which makes it WAY more honest than MSM. People simply watch and make their own decisions. We try not to tell them how to think. For us to not cover police teargassing and flashbanging and shooting people with rubber bullets when livefeeds exist would be doing a disservice to our audience.
The Nov. 2 "day of action" was in response to the events of the 25th, when Scott Olsen was injured. Between then and the 2nd, the Mayor and the Police Association both put out statements that were conciliatory to the movement and showed progress. I don't think the black bloc or the moderator got that. The purpose was not to occupy the Traveler's building. It's way too soon to do that. The result was more injury and a set back. Perhaps the result was this email, in which I am stating that if this movement continues to encourage violent resistance, it will end up in the dust bin of history, like so many before it. So, please, all of you independent media people, try to come up with something more creative (may be more challenging, but less reactive).
And in fact by getting 10,000+ people to watch at 4am we may actually be providing security to Oakland against police brutality. (ABC had an aerial chopper video that cut off right as police moved in, corp coverup attempt?) The livestreamer in Oakland helped the narrative too, by explaining that fires were lit in response to teargas, to burn it off. By explaining that the building they had occupied was foreclosed and in the past, provided services for the unemployed and homeless.
Earlier that day, I was monitoring the livefeed when the vandalism started. Almost instantly others took action to quell the vandals and we showed the world, video of OWS standing up to violence. This changed the narrative on the social web instantly.
It's still the 4th video down on http://www.occupyoakland.org/. I know - I'm kind of school-marmish, so I'm not insisting it be removed. Just think it goes against the intent of the movement. I also feel really embarrassed for The Men's Wearhouse. We walked by that day, and they had put signs of support in their windows. They got smashed, too.
As for the video of the bank window being broken, I haven't seen it. Will watch it now. But I believe that its been made clear enough at this point that those were the actions of a rogue group.
Thanks for the dialog. I have a lot of faith in OWS and think it will be revolutionary. One of the ways is by people being able to speak up, people listening, voices being heard, and dialog.
Thanks for your concern. Let me know if you're still confused,
JoshOn Nov 6, 2011 1:01 AM, "Urbaned" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
The first sentence on the homepage of the global revolution livestream says that nonviolent protests from independent videographers will be filmed. On Nov. 2, the journalist was filming the riot and calling on all of his friends to tweet the action. Soon, 10,000 collective people were watching on the global revolution and Oakland sites. To this day, the Oakland Occupy Site has a youtube of the bank window being smashed as a statement of victory. I'm confused and concerned about this.
|< PREV||INDEX||SEARCH||NEXT >|