I am AGAINST posting.
While it is true that many of us resent the police presence- and with good reason- it would not be fair to portray these sentiments without simultaneously explaining them in earnest. This video does not do that. It simply shows an anti-police attitude out of context. Most people out there are likely not aware of the conduct the NYPD has shown us (they likely know that people were arrested on the bridge, but not how many or why), when actually our relationship with the NYPD is very complicated, and I do not believe it would be appropriate or democratic to only present one side of this highly sensitive, multi-faceted issue.
I think this is beautifully done! But, I don't think it could ever be called objective by any stretch of the imagination. It's clearly supportive of the movement, which I, personally, am fine with. Should there be some distinction made between documentaries like these and day to day reportage?
This has been a seriously interesting thread to read and consider and these are hard questions. I have to say I didn't think the heckling shown in the movie was all that serious, especially compared to the images so many people have seen already of police violence. But it depends on the intent of the movie. If you're using it to attract people to the movement you walk a different line but personally that starts to feel a bit like propoganda to me.
Ultimately the amount of documentation of this movement is so immense I think the images will balance each other out. If you're going to cut out some police heckling, you might as well cut out the girl saying "I guess we're not ALL anti-state but we are anti-capitalist" (paraphrase) and things like that too.
i see everyone's point. really fucking interesting.
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:34 AM, Devin Balkind <email@example.com>
I think media, internet, outreach/pr, etc should collaborate to make curation decisions about featuring content on nycga media properties. Something like a curation committee...?
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Peter Azen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I think the video looks beautiful, really well shot and edited. But I also agree with Katie. I think a good point is to try and get the police to notice that we are fighting for their futures as well and this video is just separating us even more.
Apart from that section I dig it a lot.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: [GlobalRevolutionMedia] we the people have found our voice
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:19:20 -0400
Subject: Re: [GlobalRevolutionMedia] we the people have found our voice
There is enough spin & smear about OWS without us providing target practice for them.
Objective journalism is a myth.
Media ethics exist within a bias.
The collective message is our ethic.
In short: of course we should not include police heckling, it adds nothing to the cause & makes us look petty.
Anger is for the weak-minded.
Sent from iP
I for one do not think we should include the police heckling. Though I laugh at how much money is being used to police this action and they were very underhanded and over handed in the first 3 weeks. I know that is not what we are about and it might play into the outside medias ability to portray us a certain way. Though they will do whatever they want any way.
But we do not want to condone it because we are setting a tone of behavior for people who are not even here yet. People who have not come to the park and joined. People who have never been at a protest before. We attract what we show on our promo videos. So do we want people to come because they want to heckle the police.
Just a thought.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Katie Davison <email@example.com>
Agreed. And as someone whose been arrested and encountered violence on the part of the NYPD over the last 3 weeks, I absolutely understand that anger. I am advocating moral and ethical high ground. I am not, however, saying we should silence voices.
This is a much larger conversation that has been developing for some time and needs to be addressed asap.
I will be sending out a draft of the media charter soon and am hoping we can all get on the same page to present it to the GA by end of week.
Weigh in remotely if you can.
Received: from mail-qy0-f187.google.com [18.104.22.168] by mail35.safesecureweb.com with SMTP;
Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:06:04 -0400
I agree with much of what you're saying Katie, but I do have some ethical concerns and counterpoints.
I think there's a way to include all voices - even the most angry and the most tame, while representing the majority in the middle proportionately.
I didn't see any violence in the video, and I believe anger toward the NYPD is valid, though I do agree that we should also make videos that try to get police forces on our side.
The movement may eventually risk subgroups breaking away if the Media Team / website does not represent everyone. I think we can figure out a way to do this responsibly and with the goals of the movement in mind.
I can't make the meeting today, but I'll be there all day tomorrow. Maybe we could wait a day or two before deciding whether or not to post this video? (This is a media group decision - right?)
SORRY if this debate is getting too nit-picky. It's not really about this particular video, it's more about the bigger conversation of the Media Team's purpose.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Katie Davison <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I agree with you on some level Kari, but we can not forget that what makes this different than anything prior to it is technology and social media. We have the capacity to work in outreach and movement building, i.e. go beyond purely documenting. I would argue that we have the responsibility to do so as a working group servicing the GA.
I want to discuss this further in today's meeting, but concerning heckling - that is not what this movement is about.
We are inclusive, not exclusive. We want to speak to the police in a way that makes them understand that they should join us.
I think heckling is irresponsible and childish on any protestor's part. That doesn't mean we can't archive a fair portrayal of what is actually happening on the ground, but posting things like that on our website implies that we support that kind of behavior... which feeds the negative portrayal of us that is already floating around in the mainstream media.
We have a responsibility to be better than that... this is about a fundamental value system underlying our Declaration of Solidarity.
Our media team and messaging should be reflective of that value system.
Received: from mail-vx0-f187.google.com [22.214.171.124] by mail35.safesecureweb.com with SMTP;
Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:57:09 -0400
Katie's concern speaks to something Abe brought up at yesterday's meeting: what are we doing?
Are we purely documenting, representing all our voices and messages? Or are we promoting / framing a more specific message?
I personally like the documentary approach. I think videos of heckling police officers and more radical forms of resistance can and should be balanced with videos of meditation groups, overtly aggressive cops, and all non-radical resistance.
I think the OccupyMedia Teams messages should be as scattered as the Occupy Wall Street Movement. And that - like the movement - points of unification will naturally emerge as we begin to work in larger numbers on longer term projects.
Project Lead, BEEx
Director, Sarapis Foundation
BEEx is a free/libre/open source grassroots fundraising solution created by the Sarapis Foundation.