The Limits of the Internet or The Silence Of the Streets

[The2ndWheel]

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0305-29.htm

While we're all sitting comfortably at some desk looking at our computer screens, reading articles by people whose opinion we cherish, celebrating the feeling that we might be able to change whatever we want to change by just writing the kind of highly opinionated piece I am about to write, I have lately been giving this complacent feeling of mine a thorough cleansing which led to the following musings:

What if the world, this world of TV images we know, still was pretty archaic at heart and what if it still primarily reacted to centuries-old images and trigger patterns after all? In other words: What do political campaigns and articles via the internet really manage to accomplish? And: Does this mean that I still ought to brave icy winds or pouring rain instead and hold up some banners in demonstrations in order to really achieve anything, and does this mean that all these thoughful articles on the net don't have as much influence as all of us couch revolutionaries would like to believe?

Let me lead you through a little time machine experiment. All I'd ask you to do is imagine that there was an internet around when any of the following occured (there are thousands of cases to choose from; I just randomly picked a few):

[neweurope]

1. Right on the mark. Recommended.

------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[fasttense]

2. I went out and protested but no cameras or politicians showed up

On 13 February during the pouring rain, I was out in front of the WH with thousands of others and we barely got a 2 second mention on a local Washington TV station. I'm not sure simply demonstrating for one day will do the trick. We need to be out there for weeks to get any media or political attention anymore. I think the corporate media has become numb to protests and are actively trying to down play protesters. Politicians don't want to be involved and seem to avoid demonstrations like the plague.

[leveymg]

3. As an American who writes on-line, a lot, I disagree.

WHY WE WRITE

I am old enough to remember the Vietnam War, and the movement that opposed it. There were many large anti-war demonstrations, and more than a few turned into violent clashes. Nothing galvanized the so-called Silent Majority than the sight of cops clubbing long-haired demonstrators on television -- such a street fight one night in August in Chicago gave us the Nixon Presidency.

Large demonstrations work on several levels. Mostly they make the participants feel better about themselves. Unless they truly symbolize an overwhelming majority will that is otherwise being thwarted -- or end in the successful physical occupation of the seat of government -- they accomplish little. The media has learned how to ignore or neutralize them through selective editing.

The reason the Vietnam War ended in 1975 was because the Vietnamese inflicted sufficient battlefield casualties on the U.S. Army to convince the Pentagon and U.S. Senate that the war, as it was being fought, could not succeed by its own terms. So it is in Iraq.

Now, for the war for control of the media. The Left is winning, for largely the same reason the Vietnamese did. It's all about costs and benefits. In a war of attrition, past the point of diminishing returns, the Establishment behaves rationally. It cuts it losses, and reinvests elsewhere. The corporations still own the networks, but Arbitron shows that fewer and fewer Americans watch or much care about what's on TV news. As for new media, the Left bloosphere is on the rise while there has been a corresponding fall in page views and ad revenues are down for most Right-wing blogs. The tipping point has been reached, and the helicopters are on the roof.

[KoKo]

6. We need both...Demonstrations AND what some might view as our Echo

Chamber on the web.

Look at how many Lefty sites are now on the web compared to when the Right Wing and Drudge first went after Clinton over Monica. The only site I remember at that time exposing the Right Wingers was Salon Mag. There may have been a few other sites...but I was new to the net so went looking for mainstream stuff and Salon was radical but still seemed to be something that reminded me of an "off net" magazine.

Then "Selection 2000" broke the gate because so many of us were outraged over that theft and DU was born. I think some other sites like BartCop were around...but DU was the place for information and a community where you could share what was going on. The first demonstrations got huge attention here and pictures and running comments of peoples experiences.
Then the Mid-terms enraged more people and more sites came on line and then the "Blogs."

So...I see it as a "two-pronged" attack to get views other than the Right Wing that seemed to dominate the political web for so long. Plus we need better demonstrations. The Millions marching on both coasts just weren't covered. It was too easy for them to be ignored because of the screamers from A.N.S.W.E.R.

Cindy Sheehan's camp out in Texas probably did more than the huge demonstrations last year combined. But, not everyone can be Cindy and even the protestors who are outside the White House every day...get almost no coverage.

I'm still glad for every protest that I went to and think that it was important to do it whether it was covered or not. But, maybe we need to start protesting our Media ....like the local Fox news studios in our Cities and the local news channels that's owned by ABC/NBC who report biased RW crap or leave out important news that whould expose "other" viewpoints in favor of the latest fire or car wreck.

The one think that doesn't seem to work at all is signing all those online petitions. They never seem to make any difference. :shrug:

[leveymg]

11. I agree public events and protests are needed & can be very effective

at reaching a wider audience. They must be non-violent, have a clear, focused message, and be directed at a specific figure or institution who is already the target of bubbling public discontent. Ideally, there should be an articulate, sympathetic spokesperson. Camp Casey had all those things going for it - the October DC protest had some of it.

I was at the DC event, and glad I went. Fortunately, we don't have to choose between mass protests and the Internet.

[acmejack]

4. Who can forget "The Whole World's Watching!"

A seminal moment if there ever was one, at the Democratic Convention in Chicago 1968. Cops going nuts, protesters chanting as they were being beaten, millions watching on TV. The only question is would it even be covered on TV now?

[neweurope]

5. It would certainly be covered by the media of other countries

if you told them beforehand. That might be more important than US media reporting on it.

------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[bemildred]

7. I disagree.

The internet is far more effective as a organizing medium and as a means of free expression and debate than anything that has gone before it, and television has always been a highly controlled medium. Street demos have their place, but are highly overrated as a means to compel the powerful. Unless the powerful are made to fear for their own place and privileges, they pay little attention to the protests of the people. It is revolution at the ballot box and mass civil disobedience that have the power to compel change, and change will not occur unless it is compelled.

[neweurope]

8. I get the feeling though that our exchange via internet has replaced

civil disobedience. The internet COULD be the most important organizing medium. As it is most people are glad to find others like them on the internet, cry on each other's shoulder and leave it at that. Myself included :blush:

------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[bpilgrim]

9. i got plenty of pics of people out in the streets enmass

but the M$M has ignored and poo-poo'd them very effectively to create the illusion that everything is just swell... but we know better.

i think the internet age has maybe made folks more impatient and expect everything to travel at internet speed and causes many to perceive no change when actually it's just the opposite, lot's of change and more rapid than before.

i think the stakes are much higher today than before, considering who got the helm and whats on the table, so that just adds to all our impatience.

:shrug:

peace

[bemildred]

10. I see no reason to think so.

If anything, it's moved much faster than 40 years ago, despite the absence of a draft.

[Gregorian]

12. The fax machine stopped the Vietnam war.

I bought my last two properties on the internet.

It's as real as the people staring at their screens. It means something. It means we are here. Not there. But we can be there in a moment.

Sorry. I'm really out of it today. Totally fuzzed out. But I think this is an honest response.

[endarkenment]

13. I had a similar reflection.

I was listening to a report on internet access in Iran (NPR probably) and the observation was made that in general the theocracy encourages internet access, even if it goes through the motions of superficial censorship. The motivation was given as basically they preferred dissidents to be huddled in internet cafes or at home in their living rooms typing into the blogosphere rather than out on the streets. Basically they view it as a more or less harmless vent for political dissidence, a safe outlet for non-conformity. The internet is tolerated, like the satellite disk, as a useful tool for keeping people in line.

Needless to say, this line of thought is very disturbing. Why don't we have the level of public outrage that went with the Vietnam War? I really don't buy that it is simply the lack of a draft, although that certainly helps. Why are we so willing to accept what amounts to a coup detat, an overthrow of constitutional government, a one party tyranny?

[jasmeel]

14. This story piqued my interest regarding this point.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/06/1424236
<snip
Tens of Thousands Demand Resignation of Thai PM
In Thailand, tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets of Bangkok Sunday to demand the resignation of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Close to 5,000 police officers were placed at the rally, with another 5,000 on standby. Organizers have vowed to continue their protests until the Prime Minister agrees to step down.<snip

How devastating would it be if we could do a protest like this-in shifts? It's a constant flow of people from everywhere that are standing against *. I think this would get much more attn than one mass protest. Any thoughts?