posted
I'm pretty sure many of you are somewhat familiar with the "Solidarity" movement which, to cut the long story short, was basically the cause for the fall of communism in Poland. In the eighties, people were in a terrible economic situation. They went out to the streets, to fight for a better life. This was of course seen as rioting, and the authorities did everything they could to prevent the riots from spreading, including the introduction of martial law. The reasons of the people were totally ignored by the state (including the TV and newspapers) - but after all, this was communism. You did not expect the truth from the national television or radio. If you wanted the truth, you listened to the underground radio. All was clear.
The situation of many people in Poland is drastically similar to what it was twenty years ago. It is especially tragic in my region, where the majority of people work in coal mines. Well... used to work in coal mines because they are no longer profitable and are being closed. The situation concerns millions of people. There have been strikes, there have been talks, but there was no outcome. And this was too much for some.
There was a great demonstration in Warsaw today, with as much as 10 000 people. It was peaceful at the beginning, but soon enough, the riots broke out. The miners started fighting with the police, some people got injured. And here is what bugs me: what the media reported was that the angry mob has attacked the police - there was an interview with an injured policeman - there were politicians talking about how unacceptable this behaviour was - there were opinions of the inhabitants of Warsaw about how what they saw was an act of vandalism. There was no mention of the demonstrators' reasons, no mention of their situation. The TV relations were strikingly similar to the communism ones. Except this time, there is no underground radio to speak the truth. Except this time, the TV is supposed to be independent from the state. So will the people in other areas of the country believe the miners, as they believed the shipyard workers (with Lech walesa as their leader) back in the 80's? Or will they rather believe what the TV is saying?
See, the situation of the miners and the shipyard workers is exactly the same - but the perspective of the viewrs is totally different. And this changes everything.
[ September 11, 2003, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Kama ]
Posts: 5700 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Getting a fair and accurate story from public media is a goal that we fight dailly in the US. The owners and the government are organized, so they get their story out quicker and easier.
Until the Unions can arrange the same thing, there will definately be a disadvantage.
It is often commented that we are in an "Inforamtion Age" yet nowhere do we talk about how important gathering, spreading, and spinning information is. Why? Because those that do it so well, and gain power from it, would rather keep us all dumb.
Don't call it quits yet. The Media is strong, but the word of mouth carries more power. The Media is fast, but rumor is the only known natural phenomenon faster than the speed of light. Their story may be slower in circulating, but it will carry far more weight.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan made some good points; as he mentioned, we wrestle with this issue here.
Another point to consider, though, is that, although your media is supposed to be independent now, old habits die hard. What I mean is, even people who were not in the official media of the 1980s unconsciously grew up with a certain paradigm (ugh, that word!) of how certain types of stories are presented, and may unconsciously slip into that mode when a situation of the type that was common in the 1980s but is (apparently) less so now comes up.
I'll give you two personal examples of what I mean. My first year in college, I was a reporter for the student newspaper. In high school, I had been one of the editors of the yearbook, and my first several stories for the college newspaper were features, not investigative pieces. All about this sports star. How good this movie is. All about the new electronic card catalog at the library. All about the new School of Computer Science. I was not a journalism major, so without even being conscious about it, I slipped into that mode of writing. Writing an article was, to me, inteviewing the people most "in the know" about something--typically people in an official capacity--and presenting their statements. I interviewed the librarians, the dean, etc. Then, in the second semester, I was assigned to write a piece about an alleged incident of food poisoning in the cafeteria. Without any conscious thought, I did what I had always done: I interviewed the nurse, and I interviewed the saff of the cafeteria. I also interviewed one or two of the alleged victims. I quoted the statements of all. The nurse acknowledged that many people got sick that weekend. The victims asserted that it was the cafeteria's fault and told me what they ate. The cafeteria administrators asserted that the illness was a virus, not food poisoning, and they demonstrated how their dishwashers worked, and the temperature at which dishes were supposed to be washed, etc. I duly reported all points of view, and let people draw their own conclusions. To me, this was what reporting was. It ever occurred to me, though, to investigate the situation myself: to talk to non-administrative personnel at the cafeteria, to ask to be permitted to take temperature readings of the dishwasher water myself, or to bring a science major along to run bacterial swabs of the dishes (or the food). These things never even entered my mind. I wasn't trying to back up the administration; this was simply how I'd learned to report, and I didn't realize this new situation required new actions. When the article came out, there was some grumbling among students, that got back to me, that I had played patsy for the administration. (It didn't help that the incompetent editor that year had changed my headline to "Illness Was Virus Not Food Poisoning"--mispunctuation included!--giving my article the appearance of drawing a conclusion when in fact it did not! But this is not the place for that rant . . .) When I reflected on the situation, I had to admit that to an extent, they were right. I had presented both sides of the issue, but I took the administrators at face value, without really giving a lot of thought to the possibility that they had something to lose here, and therefore might not e completely reliable. (It's bizarre that after all I've seen I can still be so naďve about the fact that people might be lying!) Incidentally, I was treated really well by the cafeteria staff from then on . . . not always charged, etc. . . .
Another example. My sophomore year I became the editor of that same newspaper. (I firmly believe it was because I was far and away the most qualified applicant, but after that last story, I can't be surprised if people assume it was because the administration regarded me as a push-over.) Hopefully, my understanding of journalism grew, but that's not actually my point. (Neither is bragging . . .) My junior year, I became vice-president of the Honor Student Association, and one of the duties of that office was to edit and publish the newsletter of the association. (In fact, my newspaper experience, and my visibility because of it, clearly won me that position, so it's really not a reflection on my other qualifications.) Anyway, for a year now I had been laying out a regular newspaper. To me, that's what layout was about. So our newsletter looked like a tiny little newspaper. Sans serrif headlines, serrif body typefaces . . . ok, too broad: Helvetica headlines, Times body print. Three columns per page (because more would not fit). All text left-justified. It never occurred to me that some other type of layout might be better. It occurs to me now that I should have come to the task with the paradigm of a magazine rather than a newspaper, and I could have made it more visually exciting. Use a ragged left margin once in a while . . . alternate fonts . . . use white space (I used virtually none!) . . . just generally be more playful in layout! My layout was serious as death. (You'd think my yearbook experience in high school would have prepared me better, but in high school I was a copyeditor, not a layout artist. It wasn't until college that I became a jack-of-all-trades.)
Anyway, I guess people in all walks of life get in ruts without realizing it--I sure know that teachers do!--but it's really troubling when people we trust to fill some societal function, like politicians (Got a problem? Raise taxes and throw money at it! Got a problem? Lower taxes and let the free market solve it!), cops (Is he black? Guilty! Is she crying? Let her off!), and news reporters do it. I wonder if that isn't a part of what's going on here.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem that movements, especially worker movements, in democratic societies have is in convincing the rest of the populace why their particular problems matter more than others.
In other words, why are the miners (or the teamsters or the airline pilots) more deserving of government aid than other groups?
When workers are able to tie their agenda into a larger issue/perceived problem, then they are able to have more success.
That's why, at least as far as I know, the most successful worker-motivated issues in the U.S. have related to things like work week, overtime pay, job safety and workplace conditions.
The problem [and some may not see it as a problem] with a democratic capitalistic consumerist society is that it generally creates enough wealth for enough people to create a reasonable stable layer of citizens who want the status quo and will ignore the plight of the less fortunate. In other words, it's easy to arouse anger against fat cat party officials -- it's less easy to do the same against white collar workers.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Hmmm, what you're saying makes much sense, Zal. People could relate with the Solidarity, because what they protested against was the totalitarian system. I'm pretty certain that all that most of the shipyard workers wanted was just to earn enough to feed their families. But they could use the common hatred of the authorities to obtain the support of practically the entire country. The miners now have no such advantage. So, they are left alone with their problem.
Posts: 5700 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kama, you better watch out. It sounds like you are sympathizing with terrorists. It doesn't matter what their "reasons" were. They were doing something illegal. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kama, as has already been said, major media in this country is far from independant. The big media companies often have a vested interest in slanting or just ignoring stories. Several alternative news sources publish annual lists of "top ignored stories" or "top missreported stories." This has only gotten worse as corporations have gobbled up newspapers, radio and television stations and networks, and cable channels and networks. The end result is monsters like AOL/Time-Warner, one of the largest companies in the world.
Companies as large as AOL have their fingers in pies everywhere. Just as a trivial example, say Warner has a movie coming out. They can plug it on their magazine,internet,TV, radio and cable venues, often attempting to generate buzz or hype months before the film is even released. Does anybody really think that a bad review of that movie will appear in any AOL outlets? Maybe there is an honest reviewer here and there, but the bulk who get a check from AOL will either remain silent or get on the bandwagon.
Hopefully, the internet will at least partially counteract this trend, in America as well as Poland.
As far as the miners go, there have been many riots basically instigated by cops in this country, one of the worst examples being the '68 Democratic convention. I think there is actually a term, "cop riot" or something like that used by activists. Plenty of riots have been started by civilians as well.
One small snippet of trivia concerning the long and often bitter labor movement in the US I heard recently is that the only time airplanes were used by the government to attack US civilians was during West Virginia coal miner strikes in the 1920's, when strikers were bombed by the US Army Air Corps. Even a cynic like me was shocked to hear of this.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As far as the miners go, there have been many riots basically instigated by cops in this country, one of the worst examples being the '68 Democratic convention. I think there is actually a term, "cop riot" or something like that used by activists.
Good point. I was living in Miami during the minor disturbance following the Elian González raid, and I watched the demonstrations on TV. It was plain to see that the police were macing people who were milling about on the sidewalk, but not necessarily being violent, tipping over newspaper machines, etc. On TV, I watched groups of cops walk toward people on the sidewalk who weredemonstrating but doing no more and spray them or toss teargas grenades. Even the reporter got hit. Incidentally, only one television station that I saw--and I was flipping back and forth between stations--commented on this.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Another point to consider, though, is that, although your media is supposed to be independent now, old habits die hard. What I mean is, even people who were not in the official media of the 1980s unconsciously grew up with a certain paradigm (ugh, that word!) of how certain types of stories are presented, and may unconsciously slip into that mode when a situation of the type that was common in the 1980s but is (apparently) less so now comes up.
I thought about it, and I don't suppose this is it. See, people were actively trying to avoid reporting things in the "old" way. They grew up hating and distrusting the public TV. They knew it told lies. They knew it presented the exact opposite of what was really happening. The people who are now in the media are the ones who either were among the strikers, or supported them. Or at least their parents were. (Mind you, there was hardly anyone in Poland at that time, except for maybe the very elite, who was happy with the way things were back then).
I also don't think many people would compare the miners of the 2003 to the shipyard workers of the 80's. This is not the same paradigm, as it were. Actually, Kayla makes a good point there, even though it was in jest.
[ September 12, 2003, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: Kama ]
Posts: 5700 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
But this is not the place for that rant . . .) When I reflected on the situation, I had to admit that to an extent, they were right. I had presented both sides of the issue, but I took the administrators at face value, without really giving a lot of thought to the possibility that they had something to lose here, and therefore might not e completely reliable. ![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
(It's bizarre that after all I've seen I can still be so naďve about the fact that people might be lying!) Incidentally, I was treated really well by the cafeteria staff from then on . . . not always charged, etc. . . . ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
