Now, this sounds like what I want to do:
Sara Kiesler will be a keynote presenter at the 2004 Association of Internet Researchers' conference>. One of her projects is on "Multidisciplinary collaboration: Studies under an NSF KDI grant with my
co-PIs Suzie Weisband and Pamela Hinds of distributed collaborations in
science, business, and education."
quoted from Kathleen O'Riordan on the Association of Internet Researchers listserv.
Hmmm, its been awhile now, but I was thinking about a conversation I had after a job with a new Deaf person...she was telling me she had "a bad habit of teasing the interpreters" and I said I had "a bad habit of interpreting so that the hearing people know what's going on." My team interpreter raised her eyebrows at me, but since then we've both been voicing those comments and the Deaf person is being more integrated into the class as others get to experience her sense of humor.
Then, there was the time a student was waiting to talk to a professor and right when it was her turn another hearing student walked up and even though I was already voicing her comments this guy just started talking right over me! And the teacher turned to him! It could have been a gender thing in addition to the Deaf/hearing thing...at any rate, I wasn't very graceful: I immediately said, "Excuse me, its her turn" and resumed the interpretation. The student apologized but the instructor didn't. Unfortunately, I was just subbing that day, so the intervention probably didn't "stick." :-(
More positively, the interpreter confidentiality bill is making progress in the Vermont House and looks like it will get passed on to the State Senate in time for a vote to happen this year. Yeah!
The second of these starts tomorrow; I missed the first one last year.
Includes sound.
Posted by Matthew to the UMass social justice department listserv.
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 14:36:53 -0500
From: Crtnet News
Subject: Disc: MoveOn #7951
February 4, 2004, Number 7951
Communication Research and Theory Network
a service of the National Communication Association
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Disc: MoveOn #7950 (James Aune)
Re: MoveOn.Org/Irene Grau's post (Natalie Sydorenko)
MoveOn funding (Stephen D. Cooper)
Moveon.com (Phillip Dalton)
CBS censorship and MoveOn (Mark Andrejevic)
Re: Disc: MoveOn #7950 (Warren J. Bareiss)
MoveOn #7950 (Paul Oehlke)
Date: Wed 2/4/04
From: James Aune jaune@tamu.edu
Let's see: MoveOn.org is promoted "hate-filled" messages, according to the Republican National Committee. This is the same political party that ran an ad in Georgia last year in which triple-amputee Vietnam Vet Max Cleland's face morphed into that of Osama bin Laden. It is the same party that has sucked up to that lovable junkie Rush Limbaugh when he compares Chelsea Clinton to a dog, implicates Bill Clinton in murder, and tells a black caller to "get the bone out of his nose."
Go figure. . . As Joseph Welch said during the Army-McCarthy hearings: "Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?"
Jim Aune
Who is now functionally disenfranchised by Tom DeLay because his town has lots of blacks and hispanics. . .
The Texas Republic for Christ
**********************************************************************
Date: Wed 2/4/04
From: Natalie Sydorenko natsyd@yahoo.com
Nicely put, Irene. Personally, as a supporter of MoveOn.org, I must say it has inspired me rhetorically more than anything else as of late. It offers many ideas, opportunites and challenges for/of political, activist, environmental, ideological, and internet rhetorics. And not to be picky, just accurate, it's Eli Pariser (pres./founder of MoveOn), not Eli Parisi. For teacher-scholars, I believe MoveOn.org is a communicative and social phenomenon worth checking out. Peace to all.
Natalie Sydorenko
School of Communication
University of Akron
**********************************************************************
Date: Wed 2/4/04
From: Stephen D. Cooper coopers@marshall.edu
Does anybody know where the money came from, to produce the spots in MoveOn's contest? I'm just curious--whatever the source of the funding, it's political speech and hence protected--but the production values are quite high, as well as I can judge on my computer monitor (check out the slick lighting in the winning spot), and that level of quality doesn't come cheap. Moreover, networks won't even consider airing video that's below broadcast spec, so it seems safe (since that wasn't CBS's reason to refuse the contest winner) to assume that all of the entries were broadcast quality in their production values.
It just seems weird to me that a bunch of Joe- and Jane-Sixpacks out there would be so exercised about the Bush administration that they'd pony up all that much of their own dough just to put together a contest *entry*. Not impossible--just implausible. These things aren't home camcorder jobs, I'm pretty sure.
Stephen D. Cooper, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Communication Studies
Marshall University
coopers@marshall.edu
*************************************************************************************
Date: Wed 2/4/04
From: Phillip Dalton pdalton@stetson.edu
My suspicions:
Trying to make sense of why Professor (?) Oehlke repetitively refers to Moveon's spots as "hate-filled" I can't help but think that he is trying to use what he thinks is "liberal scare language" to either argue in favor of the CBS refusal to air the spots or to point out the absurdity of the use of "hate-filled" as a rhetorical device.
Let's assume for a moment that Oehlke meant to support CBS's refusal to air the spot. I'm curious about the ground on which this judgment is premised. Does he believe it best that we not confront issues such as matters of taxation in a "public-ish" forum? Ideally, what is to be gained by refusing to address the issue of the deficit when the largest US audience is convened? I'm puzzled: In principal, even Republicans believe in transparency and deliberation.
However, Oehlke may have been trying to upset liberals by using one of their rhetorical tactics. For instance, I believe it is presumed by many that the act of communicating messages contrary to, for example, minority leaders is often met with the ham-fisted response that that the rhetor is a "hater" or is "hate-filled." Fed up with this type of accusation, Oehlke believes it is time to start throwing the same barb around at others when he disagrees with them. Unfortunately, I don't think this tactic is going to resonate well with many in this forum.
Then again, let's assume that Oehlke genuinely felt that airing the spot would have contributed to "hate." Let's grant for a moment that hate would have been propagated by the advertisement. It should be pointed out that Moveon never recommended hating Bush. In fact, certain groups far enough on the political right, after viewing the spot comparing Bush to Hitler, may have liked Bush more, never having realized the connection. Anyway, I agree that the comparison was sophomoric. Moveon, however, didn't endorse the advertisement, they just failed to refuse it entry to a contest. Let's not lose sight of the fact that Moveon was going to run an entirely different advertisement than the Bush-Hitler spot. Regarding the Deficit spot Moveon wanted to run, it is my suspicion that propagating hate toward deficits is a conservative enterprise. You should be applauding their efforts. Right?
Philip D. Dalton, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Stetson University
Dept. of Communication Studies
421 N. Woodland Blvd., Unit 8377
DeLand, FL 32723
386-822-8945
pdalton@stetson.edu
http://www.stetson.edu/~pdalton
*********************************************************************************
Date: Wed 2/4/04
From: Mark Andrejevic mark-andrejevic@uiowa.edu
There is little doubt that CBS's decision (even if it were not based, as it claims, on longstanding policy) could stand as a fine example of a decision made, as one poster put it, for "purely business reasons." However, we might question just how pure such reasons are. From a business perspective it would certainly seem counterproductive to air an advertisement antagonizing the party that dominates the executive and legislative branches -- and the leadership of the FCC -- when you're desperately trying to squeak through rule changes that will allow you to become even bigger and more powerful as a media organization. It would be idiotic to do so at a time when your company (Viacom) is already over the limit and looking to expand -- and would have to sell off properties if those rules weren't changed. If democracy relies upon vigorous public debate, an informed populace, and critical scrutiny of its leaders, it seems worth asking the question of whether a conglomerate in the !
process of trying to persuade those leaders to allow it to expand economically is up to the task. It may be true that this was not an example of censorship because it wasn't the direct result of a government directive, but that doesn't mean we needn't concern ourselves with the ways in which market forces (NOT consumer demand, but rather the attempt of giant corporations to influence regulatory policy) shape the information we receive. For example -- and directly related to the CBS/Viacom decision: did CBS cover the fact that the recent spending bill actually raised the cap governing ownership rules? Not according to my Lexis search (did I miss it?). Despite the coverage generated by the flap over these rules in the Senate in the fall, there has been precious little follow up (I owe thanks to a colleague for informing me that the rule change was included in the spending bill -- this was easy to miss if you weren't paying close attention). So maybe MoveOn will get a smatter!
ing of publicity for its ad, but what didn't get covered might be even
As for the content of the commercial, this administration has been wonderful at getting the opposition to play directly into its hands -- a fact that opponents might do well to consider. Specifically, it's worth asking the extent to which the ready critique of the Bush administration for running up the deficit might fit quite neatly with its goal of eliminating social programs and offloading governance onto private corporations and individuals. Those who would ground their Bush critique on the deficit might feel the ground give way beneath them when the administration suddenly agrees and slashes budgets for medicaid, education, national parks, the environment, the arts, regulatory enforcement, and so on.
***********************************************************************************
Date: Wed 2/4/04
From: Warren J. Bareiss bareissw2@UofS.edu
Paul Pilger (CRTNET 7950) writes that CBS is not guilty of censorship because, says Dr. Pilger, censorship is "government restraint of free speech." According to my trusty Random House dictionary, a censor is an official, but an official is not necessarily a member of the government.
Let's consider censorship in the history of U.S. film. In order to avoid government censorship, the industry censored itself from the 1930s at least through the 1950s via an internal body--the MPAA.
Also, broadcasting networks had internal censors at least up until the 1980s. They still might have them; I don't know. They weren't officially called "censors," although they did screen all scripts and edited "offensive" material. The great radio comedian, Fred Allen, is famous for his ongoing squabbles with NBC censors. Along similar lines, I was just chatting with a colleague about the TV producer, Chuck Barris ("The Gong Show") who--in a recent documentary shown on Trio--discussed his strategies for confounding TV censors.
My point is that the word "censorship" does apply to private entities' internal decisions.
Secondly, Dr. Pilger says that MoveOn.Org is "happy" about not running the ad, because MoveOn.Org would save a lot of money. Dr. Pilger seems to assume that everyone, including MoveOn.Org, shares the same bottom-line, corporate mentality. I can't speak for the people who run MoveOn.Org, but I can say that as a person who sent them $20 to run the ad, I am not at all happy that the ad wasn't run during the Super Bowl. On the other hand, I am delighted to know that the spot will be shown on CNN, etc.
Finally, this really isn't an issue of freedom of speech, in one sense. For almost seven decades now, broadcast networks have established the rules for who may speak via the airwaves. Apart from professional program producers and the occasional person-in-the-street interview, access to the airwaves is based on a pay-as-you-go method that we know as "sponsorship" (or "underwriting" in public broadcasting). If you have something to say, you pay. The situation with CBS and MoveOn.Org suggests that the bar is even higher--payment plus a message that does not offend or challenge the political powers that be.
Best wishes,
Warren Bareiss
University of Scranton
******************************************************************************************
Date: Wed 2/4/04
From: Paul Oehlke rhetscholar@mac.com
Regarding the CBS rejection of the MoveOn.com spot during the Super Bowl spot, I offer the following responses (CRTNet 7950) Corporate Responsibility - MoveOn.com is responsible for what appears on its web site. By serving as host for the hate-filled spot comparing President Bush to Hitler, MoveOn.com acknowledged that its content fit within the boundaries of acceptable discourse for the organization. Mistakes, however, happen. MoveOn.com, to my knowledge, hasn't claimed that inclusion of the spot was a mistake. By providing the stage for the spot's wide distribution, MoveOn.com is responsible for its content. I'm not ill-informed about the nature of the MoveOn.com contest as Sheilah McIntosh Coffey claims, I'm simply not convinced that the inclusion of the Bush-Hitler ad was an innocent exercise of free speech.
Freedom of Speech - MoveOn.com's freedom of speech was not violated in any meaningful sense. Paul A. Pilger explains in his post that freedom of speech refers to freedom from government restriction of speech and not the decision of CBS, a private corporation, to reject a spot. MoveOn.com's support of speech chilling 'harassment' and 'hate' crimes policies in addition to its embrace of speech chilling campaign finance reform policies illustrate the organization's enthusiasm for using government and government agencies to suppress free speech. MoveOn.com's claim that its free speech rights have been violated is as empty as it is disingenuous.
Hate-Filled Speech - The 'reasonable person' and 'reasonable woman' standards are the basis for successfully establishing actionable claims in harassment case law. A reasonable person and/or a 'reasonable conservative' (the persons against whom the Bush-Hitler spot is meant to offend) would find the ad to be hate-filled. As a teen, I had the nauseating experience of visiting the Dachau concentration camp. After all these years, I still vividly recall the machinery of torture and death on display which was used against those the National Socialist Worker's Party identified as socially as its political enemies and social undesirables. I believe that reasonable persons will agree that drawing the analogy between the Hitler's crimes against humanity and GW Bush's policies is hateful. Emilie Falc may not be aware of hate-filled speech other than the Bush-Hitler spot. A reasonable person and most certainly, a reasonable conservative would find a great deal at the MoveOn.com site t!
o be hate-filled.
One of the fruits of the relationship between NCA-Southern Poverty Law Center's initiative to develop the tools and methods to identity and combat hate speech ought to be a swift and unequivocal condemnation of the Hitler-Bush spot and the organization which served as its host. Indeed, this is an ideal test case to demonstrate a principled application of the NCA's efforts to speak forcefully against hate speech. We shall see...
Controversy - Hugh Munro ask's 'since when was alcohol consumption noncontroversial?' The answer, of course, is 'alcohol consumption and over-consumption has always been a source of controversy." Munro makes a fundamental mistake of most social reformers by projecting a degree of personal outrage onto to an audience that does not share his outrage. Alcohol spots are simply not controversial to most football fans. Besides, spots that promote responsible drinking are aired during football games without controversy. The alcohol objection is simply a red herring designed to deflect attention from the fact that the
MoveOn.com spot was judged by CBS to be highly controversial to too large a segment of their audience to be worth the trouble. Emilie Falc's asserts that my reasoning is defective because of use of defective appeal to tradition apparently misunderstands the fallacy cited. Appeal to tradition is a perfectly acceptable means of warranting an argument. Because Falc finds disagreeable a close historical connection between alcohol consumption and football doesn't mean that tradition is at all faulty or defective. In addition his analogy between excessive alcohol consumption and slavery is sufficiently faulty as to be virtually a non sequitur. Arguments concerning the inability to control one's alcohol consumption are simply not of the same logical type as arguments concerning the right of one person to hold another person in bondage.
Media Access - Sean Johnson Andrews can't resist mocking the serious substance abuse problem Rush Limbaugh has with prescription medication. Putting aside what is a hate-filled and unfeeling reaction toward a person who is working to control his addiction, Andrews believes that MoveOn.com is entitled to use media outlets the organization has neither created nor built. CBS is the product of a lot of hard work by William Paley and his successors. The network has succeeded where many others failed. One of the reasons for CBS's success is a continual concern for the content of its broadcasts. The flap over the Janet Jackson flashing incident illustrates the bad publicity and damage caused by a bad programming decision. Similarly, Rush Limbaugh virtually single-handedly created AM talk radio. At a time when AM radio was in serious trouble, Limbaugh invented a highly attractive format for an audience the felt politically 'marginalized' if not despised by the dominant media opinion!
makers and gatekeepers. His success and the success of conservative talk radio was never inevitable. MoveOn.com is free to create its own media strategy that most effectively promotes its message. Rather than engaging in a neo-Marxist anti-capitalist rant bemoaning the fact that established media empires won't air the MoveOn.com spot, the organization's time would be far better spent creating the next media revolution. There's no inherent barrier preventing MoveOn.com from creating and controlling a media colossus that would make airing a spot during the Superbowl 'small change' by comparison.
Paul W. Oehlke
It's really true! Check this out (from their promotional materials) :-)
The Art of Juggling Conference
April 23rd, 24th, 25th, 2004
At the Anchorage Hilton Downtown
Deaf Interpreter Presenters: Julie Simon & Steve Walker
ASL Language Presenter: Trix Bruce
Interpreting Presenter: Stephanie Jo Kent
Stephanie Jo Kent, CI, MS, has been interpreting for a decade. She earned a masterís degree in social justice education in 1996 and is in her second year of doctoral studies in communication.
Steph has worked at two residential deaf schools, was a member of the planning team for the Allies conferences from 1997-1999, and co-presented ìDaring to Depathologize,î a keynote presentation with Laurene Gallimore for the National Association of Multicultural Education in 1998.
Steph will teach the same material to both groups. One day to advanced interpreters, and the other to beginner/intermediate interpreters. Her workshop is Interpreting as Interaction: The Interpreter and Group Dynamics. The focus will be on the practical management of the communication process ñ for example, when, how, and why interpreters seek to manage the turn-taking process, and what are the outcomes of intervening ñ or not ñ when several people start talking at the same time. Video of an actual interpreted meeting will illustrate these challenging group dynamics and serve as the starting point of our discussion. We will also watch some interviews with Deaf people talking about why they criticize interpretersí management of the communication process. These will serve as context for deeply self-reflective analysis of how our own needs and desires may actually interfere with the communication and relational process among Deaf and hearing consumers.
At the end of the workshop, each participant will have a better understanding of their own individual (personal) contribution to group dynamics while interpreting as well as how their responses to Deaf criticism may interfere with effective interpreting practice.
I just articulated something about looking at privilege in COM118's blog that feels like the "end of the conversation" to me. Maybe getting to the point of being able to formulate this was a big part of what's kept me holding on to that group. Now, it feels "done." I've reached closure.
Some stories posted on the AP already, and this message from
From Senator Stan Rosenberg
Knowing of your interest in the proposed constitutional amendment which
would define marriage as between one man and one woman, I am writing to
inform you that the Supreme Judicial Court responded this morning (February
4) to the Senate's request for an advisory opinion regarding the courts
ruling that same sex marriages must be allowed and recognized under the
Massachusetts constitution. In its response, the court said that the draft
of a bill that would have permitted civil unions instead of marriage did not
meet constitutional standards. This re-affirms the courts earlier ruling and
sets the stage for the February 11th constitutional convention at which the
proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage could be
considered. This proposed amendment is the eighth amendment on the calendar
and proceeding in the order of the calendar would mean seven other issues
would be debated first. Although it is possible that the amendment will not
be debated on that day, it is also possible that the proponents of the
amendment may choose to use parliamentary maneuvers to move the matter up on
the calendar, taking it ahead of some or all of the items listed before it.
There has also been much discussion about the possibility of amending the
proposed amendment. The current proposal is so restrictive that it would
not allow for any benefits or civil unions. Some are proposing to make it
less restrictive so that civil unions would be possible.
You will recall that the ruling of the SJC established May 17 as the first
date that marriage licenses can be issued to same-sex couples. Although
attorneys that I have consulted have indicated that they cannot think of any
means available, the opponents of same-sex marriage will most likely try to
find ways to delay the implementation of the court's order.
I hope this information is helpful to you. As you know from previous
correspondence, I oppose the constitutional amendment and will continue to
work with the GLBT community and others interested in preventing
discrimination from being written into the Constitution and protecting the
civil rights of all.
STAN ROSENBERG
State Senator
Posted to the Social Justice listserv by Felice Yeskel.
NAD announces $175,000 settlement with New Jersey jail
Locked up without communication access; deaf man settles
discrimination complaint.
Silver Spring, MD -- The National Association of the Deaf
and the law office of Clara R. Smit reached an agreement
with Mercer County, New Jersey to pay $175,000 to Ronald
Chisolm, a deaf man who was incarcerated in their
detention center for five days and appeared before the
county court without an interpreter in 1994. This
concluded a nine-year-old nightmare for Chisolm. In
addition Mercer County agreed to enter into an agreement
to provide injunctive relief for all future deaf inmates
incarcerated in their facility.
"Mr. Chisolm won a significant victory," said Marc
Charmatz of the NAD Law and Advocacy Center. "He should
never have been in pre-trial detention and in court
without interpreter services to communicate effectively.
The settlement helps make up for five days of
discrimination he will never forget."
On September 10, 1994, Chisolm was driving with a hearing
friend in Princeton, NJ when local police stopped his
vehicle and he was handcuffed and arrested. Chisolm
communicates primarily in American Sign Language so he had
no idea why he was being arrested. His friend tried to
explain what the police were saying to him with the little
sign language that he knew. Police said that there was an
open bench warrant for Chisolm, but he thought they meant
a "warranty" and did not understand what was being done.
Bewildered and frantic, Chisolm was taken to the Mercer
County Detention Center. Despite requests by Chisolm and
his friend for an interpreter and a TTY, none was
provided. Chisolm was placed in solitary confinement in a
solid four-walled cell with just a small rectangular
opening for food trays for the next four days. His only
contact with the outside world was with the intake
officers who classified him incorrectly as a vagrant. In
addition, a nurse incorrectly noted that he was a suicide
risk as he cried and flailed his arms in his attempts to
communicate. The incorrect classification and inability to
communicate with him had him classified as a higher
security risk so he was not placed in the general
population.
The detention center failed to provide him with a TTY, so
Chisolm could not call his attorney until four days later
when the detention center allowed him access to the TTY
his friend brought him. His friend also contacted Smit, a
lawyer in East Brunswick, NJ who specializes in serving
the deaf. She began investigating the warrant and called
the detention center to try to arrange interpreter and a
TTY for Chisolm. Smit was told the jail could not provide
interpreters or TTYs.
During Smit's investigation, she discovered the arrest
warrant had been issued from Bucks County, Pennsylvania as
a result of a DWI in 1989, five years prior to Chisolm's
arrest. The state contended that Chisolm had never
attended the required classes to satisfy his plea. Smit
then found out Chisolm had attended the class in 1989, but
that there was no interpreter and he was told to go home.
Bucks County then issued a bench warrant for his arrest,
which remained open for five years.
On the fifth day of his incarceration on September 14,
after Chisolm had finally been removed from solitary
confinement and placed for one day in the open population,
he was taken to the Middlesex County Court for an
extradition hearing unbeknownst to Chisolm or Smit. There
was no interpreter at the court, so Chisolm was then sent
back to the jail with a note that they would bring him
back when someone was available to interpret. The court
then rescheduled the hearing for September 20; the date
given to them by one interpreter they called, who was not
told the deaf man was in jail waiting for an interpreter.
The court fully intended to keep him incarcerated an extra
six days solely because he was deaf.
"Mr. Chisolm was basically in solitary confinement for
five days because neither pre-trial detention nor court
officials could communicate with him," said Charmatz. "No
one should have to go through this type of punishment."
When Smit discovered he had been at court without an
interpreter and the hearing adjourned for six days, she
then called the interpreter herself and arranged for a
hearing the very next morning. She also had the warrant
quashed that afternoon and Chisolm was finally released.
In 1995, Chisolm filed his complaint in federal court
against the Mercer County Detention Center and the County
Court for their failure to provide interpreters, closed
captioning and telecommunication devices during his
incarceration and court appearance in violation of federal
and state law. After numerous court decisions and an
appeal in which the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit revived the case in 2001, this case was set
for trial in the federal court before Judge Mary Cooper.
Smit and Charmatz represented Chisolm in the case. After
eight years of litigation, Mercer County Detention Center
agreed to settle the case and pay $175,000 for monetary
damages and attorneys' fees, and provide for injunctive
relief in the settlement agreement.
The settlement agreement will provide for signage
throughout Mercer County Detention Center to alert both
inmates and staff alike to the facilities' responsibility
to provide interpreters, closed captioning and TTYs to
deaf inmates to ensure effective communication. In
addition, the agreement mandates that the detention center
follow several steps to ensure all possible efforts are
made to obtain an interpreter whenever required throughout
the day or night. Training and policy changes to implement
the settlement agreement which will become part of the
Detention Center's administrative policy are also required
as part of the agreement.
Smit, Charmatz and Chisolm are extremely pleased and
excited with this settlement and hope to see major changes
in detention centers across the country, in their policies
and practices.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New Jersey
Law Against Discrimination, and the Rehabilitation Act
specifically require that jails and detention centers
provide reasonable accommodations, such as interpreters to
the deaf. Communication difficulties in the past created
extremely limited access to the legal community and the
courts in general for deaf individuals. Smit and the
National Association for the Deaf are working to bring
about changes and awareness through lawsuits against
jails, prisons, and court systems that do not follow the
law.
Posted to the DeafVErmont listserv by Rene.
Notice of Proposed Settlement in DC Case Against AMC and
Loews Theaters
Silver Spring, MD -- On January 11, 2004, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia granted
preliminary approval to settle a case brought by deaf and
hard of hearing people living in the Metropolitan
Washington, DC area (identified as Class Members) against
AMC and Loews theaters.
The lawsuit alleged that AMC and Loews violated the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to
provide captioning for movies shown at AMC and Loews
theaters.
The Notice of Proposed Settlement briefly describes the
lawsuit, the proposed settlement, the rights of Class
Members, and the fairness hearing process.
Under the proposed settlement, Rear Window Captioning
(RWC) equipment would be installed in twelve (12) AMC and
Loews theaters' screens in the Metropolitan Washington, DC
area within 24 months after the Court approves the
settlement. RWC equipment would also be installed in any
new theaters built by AMC or Loews in the Metropolitan
Washington, DC area.
Class Members may oppose the settlement by writing to the
Court and by making a statement at the fairness hearing.
On April 1, 2004, at 9:30 am, the Court will hold a
fairness hearing to determine whether the proposed
settlement agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate and
should be approved. The fairness hearing is open to anyone
who wants to attend.
Deaf or hard of hearing people living in the Metropolitan
Washington, DC area who are planning to attend the
fairness hearing should contact the Director of
Interpreting Services, Teresa Salazar, at
Teresa_C._Salazar@dcd.uscourts.gov by March 15, 2004, to
request reasonable accommodations (i.e., qualified sign
language interpreter services, real-time captioning,
assistive listening devices, etc.).
If you wish to oppose all or any part of the proposed
settlement, you must file a written statement with the
Clerk of the Court describing your opposition by March 12,
2004.
If you intend to appear at the hearing and make a
statement in court to oppose the settlement, you must file
a notice of your intention to do so with the Clerk of the
Court by March 12, 2004. You do not need to submit a
statement to attend and observe the fairness hearing.
Copies of any written statements and notices of intention
to make a statement at the fairness hearing must also be
mailed to the designated attorneys.
Please visit the NAD home page for
updates and for information related to the proposed
settlement.
Posted to the DeafVermont listserv by Rene.
Here's a good attempt to explain a part of the intricate mechanism of the Democratic primaries.
This debate is taken from Communication Research and Theory Network
CRTNET Digest - 29 Jan 2004 to 2 Feb 2004 (#2004-17)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 12:35:22 -0500
From: Crtnet News
Subject: Disc: MoveOn #7950
Communication Research and Theory Network a service of the National Communication Association
CBS censorship (Irene Grau)
MoveOn politics (Sean Johnson Andrews)
Of interest #7941 (Emilie Falc)
Re: #7941 reply/question to Oehlke (Jin Brown)
Re: Of interest #7941 (Hugh Munro)
Re: Of interest #7941 (Sheilah McIntosh Coffey)
Move-on Ad (Maurice Charland)
RE: Of interest #7939 (Paul A. Pilger)
From: Irene Grau profgrau@juno.com
Paul Oehlke
As one who has been following this event, Moveon.org (not .com) did not make any "rhetorical choice" to support and promote so-called hate filled spots. It made a choice to open up to individuals the opportunity to speak their minds, to demonstrate their creativity, and to allow others the opportunity to vote for their favorite ads. The rhetorical choice" made was to stand by their commitment to a democratic process and the American principle of freedom of expression. The hate filled ads that Paul mentions did not win, did not even make the final cut, and were promptly removed after the first round of voting. That they were inflammatory or in bad judgement is not the fault of Moveon.org. But just as folk are concerned about censorship on our "free" airwaves, Moveon.org would have been hypocritical not to give those particular ads the same chances of being seen and voted on as all the others.
As for Moveon.org's actual rhetorical choices, co-founder Eli Parisi has done numerous interviews explaining their reasons for including the ad in the voting process AND apologizing for the offensive nature of the ad. It was not Moveon.org that made the ad, nor did they "promote" the ad; they merely gave it a fair public hearing along with all the other viewpoints and opinions. Is that not what we all want?
From: Sean Johnson Andrews sandrew3@gmu.edu
For a "rhetscholar" Paul Oehlke seems to fairly uncritically accept what are only empty explanations for CBS rejecting this ad. It is evident what echo chamber he spends most of his time in when he thinks it completely logical to call an ad--submitted by an individual to MoveOn as part of this contest--making a comparison of Bush and Hitler "hate filled." (the argument is only applicable when Bush is the person being compared, evidently http://www.fair.org/activism/hitler-ads.html) "Hate filled?" Only someone with an undying, passionate love for a political figure could claim that a fairly common, though usually irrational, logical leap employed all too often these days by a variety of agendas is "hate filled." Is this an objective critical category? Shall we add it to our list of rhetorical tools: "slippery slope," "bandwagon," "hate-filled?" It seems like a difficult category to discern, but evidently if one employs such techniques it is understandable that they be disallowed from presenting their views in any forum where too many people might see it.
In our country at this moment, the concept of free speech seems to be only an empty rhetorical category. In this case, while Move On is at the center of a vast social movement, with a variety of views (yes, even if they aren't all "conservative" or "republican" there are still differences among them) being represented and real public support evidenced by the primaries they've held, the variety of ads that came in for this contest, FOXNews and others in our punditocracy, have the platform to give a partial view of their activities. This platform is so able to present conjecture as fact that Oehlke feels justified in making a statement such as, "Indeed, Moveon.com's inflammatory rhetorical choices made the CBS decision a 'no-brainer.'" Of course MoveOn didn't make the inflammatory rhetorical choices: a person who submitted an ad--which wouldn't have won the contest anyway--to MoveOn for this contest made the rhetorical choic es; Move On, in the spirit of free speech, allowed the entry into the contest, evidently able to make a more courageous constitutional coice than CBS--even if they did remove it almost as soon as they got pressure from said echo chamber.
But I digress...In this case, saying that the deficit is a partisan issue--or that pointing out that our children will be paying for it is "inflammatory rhetoric"--is ridiculous. It's almost $500 billion! Bush is supposed to be from the party that believes in fiscal responsibility; there are many Republicans that are angry about this as well. In the CBS response, they say that they will only air ads "based on how they believe such decisions serve the public interest in their communities." How, please tell me, is an ad pointing out that there is a deficit not in the "public interest?" (And don't ask the FCC chairman; he's still waiting for the "Angel of the public interest" to visit him in sleep.)
The fact of the matter is that what has actually happened is that news/opinion programs aired on the television programs of some large corporations have taken it upon themselves, from their broadcast platforms of free speech, to present a cultural image of Move On as an "inflammatory" group. Another network, which, logically, rationally, "no problem here" owns all the rights and makes all the decisions about which ads get aired during one of the biggest television events of the year, now has to deal--not with the group itself, the people who support it, or its many activities over the past six years--but with a cultural image presented by these other news/opinion programs (and their tributaries in print, internet and the scores of evidently unemployed bloggers). It is ludicrus to propose that it is MoveOn's fault that they (and their thousands of supportive citizens) are being shut out of the (formerly) publically owned airw aves where free speech happens simply because they allowed someone else to speak freely by entering a controversial ad into a contest which bunch of dittoheads decided was "inflammatory rhetoric."
The irony is that this argument is basically saying that MoveOn got in "trouble" for letting a controversial ad on it's site (i.e. allowing free speech in its own forum) and so we should understand if CBS doesn't want to be tainted by accepting (uncontroversial) ads from them because then CBS could get in "trouble" if it allows free speech from them (i.e. not because of what they are saying, but because of who they are) in it's forum--and, as we know, CBS has already been in "trouble" this year for its slanderous (or blasphemous, as the case may be) representation of Ronald Reagan, so of course they want to stay out of "trouble:" it is, from a perspective that reifies private corporate interests, a "no-brainer." Hence, the ESPN argument seems amazingly relevant--except that the controversial figure at least got a chance to test the waters, to speak his mind, and, in his case, even get paid money (as opposed to having to raise funds from sup porters) to do so. And if it weren't for the time he had to spend in re-hab, he would have been right back on theair broadcasting that view--and let's face it, if you don't have access to broadcasting, you don't make it into the public forum in America.
I suppose that the new argument (maybe even a new 1st amendment) is that we all have free speech until we say something controversial that might lose the corporate mouthpieces of our culture some money--or, in this case, a few football fans who happen to be blissfully unaware of the growing deficit (inflammatory rhetoric, partisan, not a public interest issue, mind you) and would be so incredibly angry to find out about it at half time that they would reject all football (and other Reality TV) aired on CBS. The real issue, I suppose, is that we are ultimately left with the unfortunately correct argument, "It's up to the corporate execs at CBS who gets to say anything on their network." As is blatently clear, there is no public right to the airwaves (unless, as CBS notes, you are a political candidate or someone supporting a political candidate--a category which, curiously, MoveOn doesn't fit into): the airwaves are now the property of corporate executives and corporate advertisers. I guess if we don't like the decisions they make, we'll just have to vote for someone else when they are up for re-election. Oh wait...all we can do is try to organize a publically visible (via what medium?) boycott of all the other excellent programming on CBS and hope that has an effect. Everything through the free market of monopoly media, right? Ah! isn't utopia wonderful!
From: Emilie Falc efalc@winona.edu
In response to concerns about CBS refusing to air the MoveOn.org ad, this interesting debate questions how some fundamental American values including freedom of speech and capitalism can co-exist. Many Americans believe that we are really free to express ourselves--but this example clearly demonstrates that no decision is made "for purely business reasons" (Paul Oehlke) and that consumers are getting a conservative political position served up with their TV programming. This is similar to the critique that Shopping Malls have become politically muted when they ban flyers and create privately owned space verses the public spaces (sidewalks, parks, etc.) that are available in downtown shopping areas which allow freedom of expression.
One of the risky aspects of freedom of speech is that if you allow it, as MoveOn.org did for their ad contest, you will get many different perspectives, including the "hate filled rhetoric" Paul Oehlke mentioned. However, in the MoveOn.org sponsored contest, the Bush/Hitler comparison ad was rejected, not supported by the voters. I am not aware of other "hate filled political events" (Paul Oehlke) from MoveOn.org. If there are examples, I'd be interested in knowing what counts as such, as I am concerned, along with many others, about what some call the tone of negativity in politics today. MoveOn's mission is, on the other hand, positively stated on their website: "MoveOn is working to bring ordinary people back into politics. With a system that today revolves around big money and big media, most citizens are left out. When it becomes clear that our "representatives" don't represent the public, the foundations of democracy are in peril. MoveOn is a catalyst for a new kind of grassroots involvement, supporting busy but concerned citizens in finding their political voice. Our nationwide network of more than 1,700,000 online activists is one of the most effective and responsive outlets for democratic participation available today." (moveon.org/about)
I'm glad Paul Oehlke brought up reasoning in his last post. He wrote, "Like it or not, alcohol and athletics have been historically tightly connected." His argument that ads for beer are appropriate for football is based on a reasoning fallacy, reasoning by tradition (see Sprague and Stewart). Correct me if I'm wrong, but just because it's been that way mean that it's right. I run across this type of reasoning fallacy often with my students. I use the example that just because there was a long tradition of slavery that fueled the economy of this country, it doesnít mean that it was right. Does anyone have any other examples of the reasoning by tradition fallacy that might useful in class discussion of logic?
From: Jin Brown ffjgb@uaf.edu
I have read many of the MoveOn postings and seriously question the labeling of any of their material as "hate filled." Perhaps Professor Oehlke could offer an example of something that goes beyond bias and exemplifies "hate filled" rhetoric.
From: Hugh Munro sashathor@earthlink.net
In response to Paul Oehlke's defense of CBS' rejection of MoveOn's spot criticizing Pres. Bush's deficit spending on an imperialistic war, I find Oelke's arguments ... unmoving. CBS acting "for purely business reasons" reminds that in the U$A today, PR and advertising are still the world's 'second oldest professions'. And since when was alcohol consumption "non-controversial"? Tell that to the victims of drunken driving, and to the families destroyed by over-indulgence in booze.
From: Sheilah McIntosh Coffey coffeys@wam.umd.edu
The post by Paul Oehlke appeared to be ill-informed re MoveOn.com. The site did not sponsor hate filled messages about Bush by comparing him to Hitler. They ran a contest requesting ads that get the truth out about George W. Bush in 30 seconds. Yes, two of the ads submitted did compare Bush to Hitler(I'm told, I did not see either). The MoveOn subscribers voted (what a concept) on the winners and neither of the Bush/Hitler pieces won. I would not have known about them if it had not been for the misinformation the RNC had circulated and continues to be circulated.
This is not the first time the network has declined an ad because they deemed it too controversial. A few years back an ad for a large gay ministries wanted to run an ad during the Super Bowl but it was declined because it was deemed too controversial. I cannot remember the name of the church.
From: Maurice Charland charlan@vax2.concordia.ca
I agree that CBS should be called to task for refusing to run the Move On ad. However, the issue is not one of free speech, certainly not in terms of the first amendment. The issue is about the manner in which private institutions manage manage their share of public airwaves. In my view, CBS has a responsibility to promote political debate rather than curtail it. While it also has the responsibility to ensure that what is aired conforms to general standards of good taste, it should recognize that democracy thrives on controversy.
The irony, of course, is that television networks are quite happy to offer fare that is in bad taste, that panders, and that is morally questionable, because these do not generate controversy.
From: Paul A. Pilger ppilger@mailer.fsu.edu
CBS seems to have an excellent policy regarding airing political ads during the Super Bowl.
While viewers of the Super Bowl watch for entertainment, they do tend to get a little ornery. While reports of increased domestic violence on Super Bowl Sunday are anecdotal and not supported by any study, what is not needed during the airing of the SuperBowl is another reason for viewers to get in each other's face. I am a Republican, and will be the only Republican at a Super Bowl party of 20 devout to rabid Democrats. I am happy that I will not have to bite my tongue during a Super Bowl party when I see a political ad with which I disagree. Better yet, I am happy that I will not further upset the guy whose team is losing by letting him know that, not only does his team stink, but I think his political ideas do too. Anyone concerned about the negative effects of drinking alcohol during a football game should be cautious about further agitating the situation, which political ads would certainly do.
And CBS is censoring nothing.
Censorship is an act of government restraint of free speech, not a corporate decision to decline to air a commercial that won a contest conducted by a political activist group, in this case a very well organized, well-funded, media savvy group. Just like every other political organization, MoveOn.org has many, high-ratings opportunities for airing their ad, and, just like every other political organization, one of those times is not during the Super Bowl. That's always been CBS's position and it's their position now. CBS's policy treats everyone equally, and censors no one.
That CBS is running an anti-drug ad produced by the government is not a contradiction or hypocritical; the Super Bowl is the best time to run an ad which is in the public interest --the interest of the entire public-- and an anti-drug ad is exactly that. People can be irresponsible when they drink, yes, which is not a reason to stop running beer ads. But if CBS wants to stop running beer ads, they may. There is no constitutional free speech right to have an ad aired, as demonstrated by the lack of hue and cry over violating the free speech rights of tobacco companies which cannot run television ads.
The idea that this is not a partisan issue is laughable. Political organizations often run important issue ads in a few major markets (New York, Washington DC, or Los Angeles) with the hope that national broadcast and cable news media will air their ad as part of a "news" story about the ad. This is a very effective strategy for getting a wider audience for the ad without having to pay for it and was a big part of MoveOn.org's goal in holding the contest: media attention, media reporting, and media hype, all free of charge.
While CNN has covered the MoveOn.org contest winner, CNN has not gotten back to me on whether or not they actually aired any part of the ad during their news story. (American Family Voices did this successfully with anti-Bush ads; see Dan Altman's July 10, 2002 NYT story for general information about that "secretive group").
Yes, MoveOn.org would pay for the ad-time if CBS would agree to air their ad during the Super Bowl, but the idea is that there's more going on here than a group making an ad and wanting to run it. MoveOn.org knows the rules and knew that CBS would not run their ad. They have pulled-off the converse of someone asking, "How often do you beat your wife?" Without provocation, MoveOn.org has asked, in effect,
"Did you just ask me 'How often do I beat my wife?'
Why, that's outrageous! I cannot believe I've been treated this way!"
At the moment, MoveOn.org is quite happy about not being able to air their ad during the Super Bowl, and for three good reasons: first, they will save a tremendous amount of money by not running the ad (though they are certainly well funded); second, they will --free of charge--garner much attention from national news organizations under the ruse of
"controversy" and "censorship"; third, the canard that MoveOn.org is being censored will help energize their members a bit, echoing accusations from Democrat activists and politicians that "the voices of opposition are being kept down by this administration," as if CBS is being pressured by the RNC and as if the White House enjoys disproportionately good press from CBS.
If the shoe were on the other political foot and "MoveOn.org" and "George W. Bush" were replaced with "Rush Limbaugh" and "Bill Clinton," Democrats would roll their eyes in righteous indignation at the charge that CBS was censoring Limbaugh.
But MoveOn.org has gotten their wish: a lot of people are talking about an ad that won't run which criticizes a White House that MoveOn.org asserts is trying to limit free-speech, and all at no cost. It hardly gets any better than this.
I saw Eric yesterday (from COM118) and had a moment of cognitive dissonance - "old" student or "new" student? Then Katie emailed me today for her grade (I hope SPIRE is working). I'm feeling the loss of ending...aware that the new group (COM250) hasn't gotten their momentum up yet, and also that the developmental dynamics are quite different because we meet in 50 minute blocks instead of 2.5 hour sessions. Even we did meet for the same period of time the dynamics would be different, but its the pace of development that I'm needing to adjust to, as well as trying to not let the ending process from 118 influence the beginning of 250. Only one day in between was not enough!
Meanwhile, a few folk are still reading 118's blog!
The US Department of Education under President Bush's Administration is looking to cut closed captioning for almost 200 TV shows since it believes that the shows are not approrpiate for captioning due to lack of "educational and informative means."
Caption Cutback is Major Setback
Television Captioning Censorship Hurts Family Values.
From David via the DeafVermont listserv.
Homework for 794M, Race, Pedagogy, Performance and Pragmatism.
Responding to the question about what brought me here, I first wonder which ìhereî to focus upon: to this class? To an interest in ìRî and the 3 ìPísî? To education in general?
While Vernonís story privileged the passion for learning and its potentials, my story privileges identity. I doubt I would be here if I hadnít spent the first 30 years of my life dealing with US societyís treatment of lesbians, and the last 15 wondering about my own contributions to oppressive conditions as a white, able-bodied, hearing, raised middle-class person. (Thereís about a fiveñyear overlap, Iím 40 now.)
I experienced my public education indifferently. I was smart enough to do ok and not be a problem so no one paid any particular attention to me. I got excited about school for my AA (in Sign Language Studies) and BS (Interpreting) because a passion was triggered. I took advantage of grants targeted at filling an employment and access gap. So, in my younger years I was produced in a disembodied way, and in college I was produced as a worker.
Critical thinking wasnít introduced to me as a way of constructing knowledge until my Masterís degree (here at UMass in Social Justice Education), and I didnít really ìget itî thenÖonly now, in my second year of study in COM, do I feel that I am starting to grasp the ëbig pictureí of schooling as an institutional force on the construction of identity, particularly in terms of subjectivity. What seems challenging to me is how to use the language of ìraceî ñ be able to draw attention to differences and validate them ñ without reifying new structures of prejudice (as Joanna cautioned last night in class). Talking about subjectivities seems to me to be one way, however there still comes the matter of patterns and generalities (not stereotypes). Donal emphasizes the presence of BOTH ìcommonalitiesî and ìparticularitiesî and this seems especially relevant in our context.
With what terminology or vocabulary can we address whiteness? And, whenever we name whiteness arenít we also referencing blackness and latinidad andÖit seems important to me to keep in mind what weíre not saying as well as what we are saying.
Returning to me as a product of my schooling, there is no doubt in my mind that the primary reason I am ìhereî now is because I am white. There was enough privilege going for me that I could drift through the first 25 years of my life completely disassociated from any connection between my own phenomenological experience and everyone elseís. Even after I ìwoke upî, I still screwed up more times than I care to recall and yet look, ìhereî I am! In some ways I am still ìdriftingî ñ although I recognize the depth and breadth of competition among intellectuals, the strategy of waiting until something moves me to the next thing is still my predominant mode. I do some planning, certainly I look towards what Iíd like to do in the future and this influences choices I make now, but there is still a reservoir of belief that things will just work out, one way or another.
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:17:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Art McGee
Hum,
I'm sorry, I'm just having trouble understanding why you can't see through the most important problem with electoral analysis: the assumption that distribution of support for a candidate will be equal across all states, and therefore, if you lose these initial states, that means you're out of the race.
More importantly, the manipulations of electoral politics by Capitalist media seem to me to be something that make the entire process fraudulent. Have you ever seen a literal horse race in which people were able to bet after the race started? No? Then why do we allow that in our elections? The very nature of the reporting about the race and the speculation about possibilities of winning for particular candidates is a blatant manipulation of the process itself.
In effect, U.S. Presidential elections are invalid by default, but maybe I'm not grasping the sociological underpinnings of why we run them this way.
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 12:32:36 -0800 (PST)
From: "Robert M. Tynes"
No need to be sorry. I couldn't agree with you more...except for: "why we run them this way."
WE don't run them any more than the person at a slot machine runs the casino. See Karl Rove and the Texas shift from Dem. to Rep. See the lack of unity in the Dem. party, hence the opportunity for the press to run the show and not give us a coherent and understandable picture of the issues(i.e. the lame and fleeting Dean scream that makes for better news than foreign policy positions).
Who's we, and why do we think their is an us? Constitutional mythos?
I wish there was a we.
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 13:46:29 +1100
From: Jonathan Marshall
I don't know if people saw Weinberger's response to Shirky. Weiberger wrote "small peices loosely joined" and is Dean's web campaign person.
The arguement seems to be the old one. The Net leads to fantasy, or online satisfaction, rather than real world action (Shirky) vs. the Net challenges everything and is a new public space going to forge new social alliances [social software](Weinberger).
At the moment this seems to a matter of assertion. Weinberger asserts the Dean campaign would be nowhere without the Web and it has allowed the raising of funds etc.
It would be nice if we could actually get beyond these kinds of dichotemies even if it was just to ask "what kinds of offline social interaction is furthered by the Internet, and which is not?"
It may be that established powers are not yet threatened by the net, they can use it better etc. It may simply be that people forget that the Net is embedded within a society which has very specific conflicts and dominances and is thus not simply going to escape those dominances, who are as good at colonising new spaces as ever.
However it might be worth asking if there some aspect of power - what Michael Mann calls 'interstitial power', which is invisible to the dominancies and thus able to be organised through the net?
Or is it simply that we old folks, have not yet got into the habit of integrating online life with offline? Is the perception of the gap the problem, both ways....?
Oh well, nothing useful i guess..
From: "Ren Reynolds"
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 14:46:00 -0000
I've been meaning to post about the same thing, the assertion in the
piece that found most _interesting_ was this:
"We know well from past attempts to use social software to organize
groups for political change that it is hard, very hard, because
participation in online communities often provides a sense of
satisfaction that actually dampens a willingness to interact with the
real world."
Is there data to back this up ?
I would imagine that it would depend on the community that was created.
Certainly some research on Virtual World communities seems to indicate
that membership of the community is empowering and can make people more
politically active. So does any one here have the data to share the 'we
know well' assertion ?
www.renreynolds.com
terranova.blogs.com
From: "Joao Vieira da Cunha"
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 09:55:13 -0500
Ren and fellow AoIRs,
I conducted a study of the use of a newsgroup in a company during a large scale change that was threatening to employees' identity and found that participation on the newsgroup, on-line and off-line lurking all had a cathartic effect, ie. They reduced people's willingness to resist change. There were even textual rituals enacted on the newsgroup at the highest peaks in tension during the change process, which consisted in people posting blank messages at rates over 100 messages a day.
Without posting the whole paper, I'll share with you a quote from one of
my informants:
[O]ne of the functions of the [Newsgroup] was that independently of bringing people closer, of helping them develop, of the role it played, it was a very powerful instrument that was favorable to the company in the sense of being the escape valve for a lot of stuff [...] It was a very useful escape valve that the company did not value.
I'm currently working on writing this up, but I'll be happy to share it once it's done.
Hope this contributes to the discussion,
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 08:56:16 -0600
From: Nancy Baym
In response to the Clay Shirky piece, Ren comments:
>I've been meaning to post about the same thing, the assertion in the
>piece that found most _interesting_ was this:
>
>"We know well from past attempts to use social software to organize
>groups for political change that it is hard, very hard, because
>participation in online communities often provides a sense of
>satisfaction that actually dampens a willingness to interact with the
>real world."
>
>Is there data to back this up ?
I had the same reaction to the same line and was surprised that in
the comments reacting to the piece no one questioned this assertion.
I find it implausible that people who are using the internet to
retreat from offline life would choose a political action online
community in which to do so. Perhaps some of the air-l readers whose
work speaks more directly to political engagement can clarify this.
Certainly in the interpersonal realm, those who use the internet most
for interaction seem also to be those who communicate most
face-to-face and on the telephone.
Nancy Baym
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:01:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Art McGee
> I find it implausible that people who are using the
> internet to retreat from offline life would choose a
> political action online community in which to do so.
That's never been asserted. What's been said is that the
dependence on online technologies can lull some people into
a false sense of security.
Look folks, this isn't aerospace engineering. There are a
whole range of factors that determined why Dean is where he
is, and none of them are simple. I don't understand why
people assume they are.
I have some questions:
1. Why do we assume that Iowa and New Hampshire speak
for the entire country? I live in California, and don't
understand why other states get to decide the field of
candidates before I've even had the chance to vote. For all
we know, Dean could have 100% support in other states, but
due to the nature of the primaries, people get knocked out
before we can discover that. Anyone here done some research
on the flaws in that?
2. Most of the focus on Dean was about the internal
organization of volunteers and core supporters, but little
was said about voters not a part of the campaign (that
includes people who didn't have time to waste going to
MeetUps). Dean's strength was his staff and volunteers, but
that can't be equated with votes. Too many people made the
assumption that one would lead to the other or that they
were one and the same. Why?
3. Dean would be nobody without the net. Why is there an
assumption of failure? If Bill Clinton was running with the
same figures as Dean, that would be failure, but that would
also assume that he was somebody already. Dean was a nobody,
who used the internet to become a somebody. That's not
failure, that's incredible success. Why do the idiots like
Clay Shirky and all of you smart researchers wholly swallow
the false paradigm of failure that Capitalist media feeds us?
4. Why is everyone ignoring the politics? Why do people
assume that the reason people didn't vote for Dean was
something other than his politics? Lots of the people
who were assumed to be Dean supporters don't really like
him or even know who he is. Remember the article talking
about the lack of support among African-Americans for
Dean? Did Clay Shirky and the rest of those blog idiots
have much to say about that? Well, African-Americans are
one of the core constituencies of the Democratic party.
If they weren't all that enthused how do you think other
people might have felt?
5. Too much of the focus on and of Dean's campaign was
about youth. That's nice, but youth don't vote. Youth aren't
stupid, they're just rightly cynical about the lies fed to
them by Capitalism. While Dean had tremendous youth support
that doesn't mean that he had lots of eligible voting-age
support. Too much high-tech focus on youth and gadgetry and
not enough on the offline old folks who actually go to the
polls and those city council meetings consistently (which
are important, whereas a MeetUp don't mean shit to them).
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 16:28:43 -0600
From: Nancy Baym nbaym@ku.edu
> > I find it implausible that people who are using the
>> internet to retreat from offline life would choose a
>> political action online community in which to do so.
>
>That's never been asserted. What's been said is that the
>dependence on online technologies can lull some people into
>a false sense of security.
To the contrary, that is more or less Shirky asserts: "We know well from past attempts to use social software to organize groups for political change that it is hard, very hard, because participation in online communities often provides a sense of satisfaction that actually dampens a willingness to interact with the real world."
My question (and I think Ren's) was not whether this is an accurate
explanation of what's going on with Dean's campaign, but whether
there is any evidence to support this claim in general -- what is the
evidence from the use of social software to organize groups for
political change that participation in online communities results in
less willingness to interact in "the real world"?
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:33:41 +1100
From: Jonathan Marshall
For what its worth, my experiences with online groups who tried to
organise anything, and its only subjective and limited, is that it
is exceedingly hard to translate online enthusiasm into actual
*sustained* action of any sort - taking the action offline makes
it even harder.
Furthermore it seems that stuff eventuates when it can be largely all
be done by one or two 'fanatic' people - or it can be done through
personal ties between a few list members, or there is already some
kind of offline organisation propelling people.
I think this would be harder still when you are going against
established power or communication systems, or when your class of
members is largely not able to do what you need them to do - say if,
as Art suggests, Dean's web campaign attracted people who were too young to vote, and not enough of the voters.
These kinds of effects may well be of social origin, not innate to the
Net. Ie to use an old term, in a place were people are already alienated from action, then talk may well be the only action people are
willing to take or risk.
But as i suggested earlier this may also vary with the kind of social
action we are discussing, and the kind of resistances to it. It is not
necessarily an all or nothing thing.
Ie with Dean, it seems much easier to find the mainstream media's
coverage of the 'i have a scream' thing and how it disqualifies him
in some people's eyes, than to find out anything about what he
actually said. That probably has something to do with already
established powers.
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:16:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Art McGee
[Tell Clay Shirky and his ilk to blog this.--Art]
The Black Commentator
January 29, 2004 [Issue 75]
Editorial
The Awesome Destructive Power of the Corporate Media
"Howard Dean has joined the list of victims of U.S. corporate
media consolidation. ...The Dean beat-down should signal an intense reassessment of media's role in the American power structure. The African American historical experience has much to offer in that regard, since the Civil Rights and Black Power Movements were born in a wrestling match with an essentially hostile corporate (white) media. However, there can be no meaningful
discussion of the options available to progressive forces in the United States unless it is first recognized that the corporate media in the current era is the enemy, and must be treated that way.
Copyright (c) 2004 The Black Commentator. All Rights
Reserved.
