Could Gandhi & MLK have succeeded in today's media climate?

[Reader Rabbit]

Every year I teach an extensive unit on the Holocaust. My students not only read Anne Frank and Elie Wiesel, but are immersed in a great deal of background information about an historical era of which many of them are, shockingly, ignorant. One depressing constant in my yearly teaching of this unit is that there is nearly always some current, real world parallel. This year it is Darfur.

Now, I always attempt to present the parallels to my students in as hopeful a manner as possible: “People are speaking out against this.” “They’re standing up for others.” “You can make a difference.” The recent arrest of five U.S. Congresspersons at the Sudanese embassy seemed tailor-made to send this message. Yet when I Googled the incident, I came up with a paltry handful of articles. Most were from foreign news services or regional media sources serving the constituency of the Congresspersons involved. No New York Times. No Wall Street Journal. No CNN.

It was appalling.

And more than that, it was disheartening. Could the 20th century’s most earthshaking revolutions have occurred in today’s media environment? Would India have shaken the British yoke if Mohandas K. Gandhi’s nonviolent efforts had not been covered by newspapers worldwide? Would the Civil Rights Movement have succeeded without sound clips of Dr. King’s moving speeches, or news footage of Bull Connor brutalizing peaceful protesters?

Social movements rely on public knowledge of inequities, atrocities, and the consequent campaigns to prevent or stop such things from happening. In order to effect real change, public outrage is an absolute necessity. But how can the public be outraged when they are uninformed and ignorant of what is going on in the world? When the media doesn’t cover the atrocity in depth or detail—as is the case in the often back-paged Darfur genocide—or when it fails to mention widespread opposition to government policies and actions—as the dearth of coverage given to the enormous antiwar rally in New York City illustrates—then can peaceful protest succeed?

I would never, ever advocate violence. Please do not read this as a call for such an un-evolved reaction to our current circumstances.

But how can the voice of the people change anything, if no one can hear it?

[elehhhhna]

1. good question. see colbert incident. totally self edited by media.

our local newsdingding mantioned him this am, but identified Colbert as the Bush Impersonator!

btw, I hope you're aware that Anne Frank died. My daughter recently corrected her 6th grade Soc Studies teacher on this factiod, LOL.

[Nevernose]

2. Check out "The Boondocks" episode

"Return of the King," which takes place in an alternate reality in which MLK wakes up from the coma James Earl Ray put him in, only to be shicked and appalled at what America, and America's specifically black culture, has become. Early on in the episode, he goes on a TV news show only be to be lambasted and shouted down. When asked about his views on the Iraq situation, he says, "I believe as Jesus believed, as it is written in the Bible: turn the other cheek." Within 24 hours, he is the most hated man in America for his liberal, traitorous views.

Much like the Daily Show or Colbert Report, "The Boondocks" show has the advantage of telling the truth in a very, very funny way.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. Sure, but I betcha bloggers would have destroyed them.

The Times has very few articles available to be Googled, but when I was getting the print edition every day, Darfur was mentioned as much as several times a week, often on the front page. It was from the Times that I learned about the Sudan long before it became the cause du jour.

I can't say much about Ghandi, but I remember that King was villified in the press as much as lauded, and probably more so until toward the end.

The problem with the press is that no one cares about the press and there is little point to reporting properly if everyone would rather listen to some anonymous blogger or radio gasbag.

When King was marching, much of the press hated him but eventually cooler heads prevailed and he became a hero. It was a slow process, but one that usually worked. Now, we have the hero of the day pumped up by discussion boards and bloggers with no analysis, no thought, and no filtering mechanism.

Just look at so many threads on DU-- hero today, gone tomorrow.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. The immigrants seem to be making a pretty good splash.

They're making a revolution without violence.

I sympathize with your observations about the media and the apathy of the American people regarding the horror in Sudan but we are essentially a petit-bourgeois society that doesn't concern itself with the rest of the world. Just as most Germans looked the other way and justified measures against the Jews in the '30s, most Americans would much rather be entertained by the sex-scandals of celebrities/athletes/politicians or the "safe" controversies of smoking in bars or steroids in the Big Leagues than fret about starving people, genocide, or racism. Such things are far too disturbing to ponder and it's much more convenient to exclaim, "What can one person do?".

MLK and Gandhi led revolutions because the particapants in those revolutions were directly affected by the repression that existed (and still does) in a very real way. They eventually won their revolutions because they were tenacious and patient. Not qualities usually found in a citizenry devoted to sound bites and instant gratification.

As an aside: Have you read Victor Klemperer's "I Will Bear Witness"? The most chilling book(s) I've ever read about the holocaust and the indifference of "common" people.

[Homer Wells]

5. Speaking of News Management

Seems strange that two of the more significant events of the weekend, those being the Colbert event in Washington as well as the Anti-War Demonstration in New York, made not a blip in the MSM.

Colbert was magnificent (or devastating, if you are a ReThug), while the massing of 300 to 400 K demonstrators in NYC protesting an illegal and unjust war costing the lives of thousands of our own citizens, and many many thousands of Iraqi men, women, and children, was truly a heartening example of the reawakening of Americas lethargic social conscience. Haven't seen such glorious "American Pride" since the Sixties!!!

How right Stephen was about our news people. The MSM should just cut to the chase and rename itself PRAVDA.

[karynnj]

6. A more optimistic way to look at is:

In spite of almost no positive media, a convincing majority of Americans rejected the Bush administration. That shift PRECEDED the media shifting. (too late for 2004, but it is happening) This is more impressive than the 60s/70s when a substantial portion of the media supported the anti-war movement. (Consider that in 1971, all three networks broadcast about 5 minutes of the young John Kerry's speech - has any anti-war spokesman been given such serious press.)