RSSWeapons of Mass Reflection
Today’s journey through the blogosphere led me to an interesting analysis over at the Huffington Post. The debate centered on human rights versus national security. Although this debate is as old as our country, one line in particular sparked something in my mind. The line reads: the smaller any threat becomes the less safe we are against it.
I thought about how guerilla movements have always been hard to defend against. They seem to come out of nowhere and their flexibility allows them to change. Guerrilla strategies in Vietnam and currently in Iraq are instances where guerrilla tacics have been enough turn the tides war. Such strategies are driving the streamlining of the U.S. military.
This single line, drove me to ask myself, “how can this ethos be applied to a media company?” When big media has become a threat to our freedom of choice, when they have threatened our perception with their monopolized scope of the world, when they’ve become so big that the miss the stuff everyday people want to know about, how can a small news operations become a threat?
The answer I found focuses on the smallest yet most important component of any news outlet—individual news consumers. You.
The future of the media depends on you. Each of us represents a threat to the status quo. When we decide to tune out from the formulas of network news; when we demand an accurate depiction of the stories that represent us; and when we decided to seize the power of the pen for ourselves and each one of us chronicle our own realities, than the news media becomes less safe. The media behemoths will no longer wield control of the media’s power to inform and inspire change. Their outrageous profits become more widespread and the stories they report will reflect more people.
This is one mission of TROUBL. This site is a conversation among people, who at the lowest levels care about and want to share the realities of their world. Our mission is to build a better consciousness among the people on the bottom. In pursuit of this mission, we have to destroy. We have to destroy the idea that the mainstream media’s model is the only way. We have to splinter the news so that all perspectives are considered and debated.
As a media organization, we won’t declare that we are the standard or that we are the most fair and balanced. Our goal is to start conversations and provide the places for these exchanges to occur. The power of the media lies in the hands of the viewers, listeners and readers. Each of us represents our very own newspaper, magazine and cable channel. The Net gives us this power.
Please be critical of us. Let us know where we fail. And give us suggestions on where we can improve. Remember people this is just the beginning.
One Comment, Comment or Ping
Malia
I love your mission statement - I hope people will take a stand and form their own opinions. That way we can learn from each other and see through different eyes. Points of view change all the time….I’ve seen it happen first hand. “how can this ethos be applied to a media company?” MEDIA SHOULD SPEAK UP ON CLARIFICATION!!!!!!
National security versus civil liberties is an inappropriate characterization because it sets one off against the other.
This is not a zero-sum game.
I’m concerned that the proposed law would lead to arbitrary arrest, racial profiling (as if we don’t already have enough of that!!!) and the branding of any type of dissent as terrorism. It could also try to stop the flow of funding to “terrorist groups”, which in turn, would have an effect on legitimate charities and non-profit organizations. Think about it - it’s not hard to imagine a situation where fundraising for food and money for Afghan refugees in Pakistan will be labelled as terrorism, if those resources are seen as indirectly going towards terrorist organizations. I personally give to many different charities all the time, well not to Pakistan, but I wouldn’t want my choices censored.
Then too, under the proposed legislation, labour protests such as an illegal nurses strike could fall under the definition of terrorism. Why? Because it’s politically motivated, it’s seeking to make the government do something and could be seen as presenting a threat to the safety of the public health and disrupting an essential service. YIKES!!!! Heaven forbid a teacher’s strike that the government felt was politically motivated - then would our children’s education be censored? Isn’t the curriculum already horrendous enough????
Honestly, the legislation needs to be clarified and the media can help speak up on those clarifications. There should be a tighter definition of terrorism and some type of clause on certain elements of the legislation. They should refine and clarify the language, so that we don’t end up with a law of unintended consequences……because it’s going to be with ALL OF US for a long time!!!!
[Reply]
Reply to “Weapons of Mass Reflection”
SEE ALSO
♦ TROUBLMan - We Live This
November 30, 2007
♦ Ronnie B. TROUBL - Grind
April 21, 2008
♦ TROUBLMan - Between the Lines
January 7, 2008
♦ TROUBLMan - Fast Cars
December 12, 2007
♦ Q - Anatomy of a Gansta: Self-reflection
January 14, 2008