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.