From:   Airplane <nathanairplane@gmail.com>
Sent time:   Friday, September 16, 2011 3:01:48 PM
To:   september17 <september17@googlegroups.com>
Subject:   [september17discuss] Re: can someone tell whoever spoke to the Village Voice
 

It occurs to me that some words from a piece we just published at

Waging Nonviolence might be helpful here. I hope this isn't a burden

on your inboxes, but I really like this. It's by Mary E King, who was

part of SNCC's communications team during the civil rights movement:

 

For the procedures that we created to work, our communications office

had to earn credibility as a trustworthy source in the eyes of the

national and sometimes international news corps. The reporters, whom

we came know personally, were sometimes indifferent, rushing to meet

deadlines, or suspicious of being exploited by propagandists. Julian

[Bond]’s natural inclination toward understatement set the tone. We

avoided sensationalism, underestimated the numbers of individuals

participating in movement activities, and triple-verified any count of

atrocities. Even then, we might undercount in order to be safe. We

attributed facts to named sources. The style was clear and

unembellished with no opinions or value judgments.

 

Reporters from Southern white-owned newspapers were often hostile to

the movement and did not consider acts of brutality, casualties, or

attacks on African Americans as newsworthy. Many today believe that

the media were unambiguously on the side of the movement, provided it

with influence and authority, and that its reporters were nearly co-

workers. This is not true. We had no expectations that the news

industry would assure that the movement was properly or fairly

reported. We knew that securing appropriate coverage was our

responsibility and a function of our integrity.

 

She adds, at the end:

 

The way in which a movement works with the media is a vital to

accomplishing its goal. Information must be presented scrupulously, in

part to earn the trust of journalists and the outlets that need

credible sources for their reportage, and in part to reach the target

group. Nonviolent movements possess all the attributes of exciting

news stories, and, properly offered to the news media, they may be

able to project their quest onto a larger stage of public opinion.

Even without having any expectation that news coverage is their due,

they can persuade the media to pay attention if they make it part of

their larger grand strategy. … Making the international media pay

attention is not merely a matter of asking their good favor. It begins

within movements themselves, on the ground. It is integral to fighting

for justice with consistency between the means and ends, where the

right strategy and simply telling the truth converge.

 

Read the rest:

http://wagingnonviolence.org/2011/09/how-we-made-the-media-pay-attention/

 

Hope this helps.

 

Nathan

nathan@wagingnonviolence.org

 

 

On Sep 16, 2:06 pm, David Graeber <da...@anarchisms.org> wrote:

> On Sep 16, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Jon Good wrote:

>

>

>

> > The person who gave the interview had their inexperience and naivete exploited by the press.  

>

>         really? then how do you explain the fact that the author of the piece, the journalist who supposedly exploited a naive student

> activist, is herself an NYU student activist on an internship who clearly identifies herself with the very same faction as the student

> we're all supposed to believe she "exploited"? I checked her name on google and here's what she tweeted to her followers

> about the interview:

< PREV INDEX SEARCH NEXT >