For blog event, I participated in a live blogging session. Two weekends ago, the American University Public Relations Student Society of America held it's third annual Regional Activity. Regional Activity is two days full of firm tours, professional development workshops and networking opportunities. This year I helped plan and execute the event with my chapter. Each of the planning committee had workshops to attend and then report back to our main blogger to post on the site. I attended a several workshops in between running around and making sure the food was all set (my responsibility)
The first workshop I attended was presented by a woman who works for the U.S Army public affairs. It was a very very interesting presentation. She was a dynamic speaker, which really helped to mask her propaganda for a while. Then I think a couple of us started cluing in when she showed us a series of yay Army videos. It was interesting to here someone speak to passionately for the Army, especially when usually what we get from more dissident press sources is definitely not as positive. The information that she shared with us was all positive and didn't really mention the current war at all except when relating it to a positive message or event that the Army does for the soldiers. At one point someone asked her a question about the death toll in Iraq and she completely spun it around so that it almost seemed like a positive thing. In the mainstream press, there is fair bit of criticism of the war but it is always disguised through partisan views. I think that the power of dissident press, especially blogging lends itself to the criticisms in a more complete way.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Subtle Censorship?
Censorship is not always blatent.
Today for another class assignment I decided to visit the Smithsonian American Art Museum. I was happy to see that they were showing an exhibit about William Christenberry. I was even more pleased to note that he was the one who curated the show.
William Christenberry is probably most famous for his Klu Klux Klan images, which are oddly desettleing but nonetheless create an accurate description of one of the most unique cultures within the continential United States. The American South is an interesting place with an even more provactive and interesting history. It should come as no surprise that a man whose body of work seems to be concentrated solely on the South would use images of the KKK. To deny that part of our history would be telling of course an incomplete picture.
Christenberry has been suposedly threatened and intimidated by members of the Klan and the subject has been prevelant in a lot of his interviews.
Which brings us to the point of this post >>>
Why then were any of the images of the klu klux klan, seemingly hidden in an ill-lit corner of the exhibit? Why were there are two photographs, 1 glass doll and 3 paper transfers of Klan imagery?
The Smithsonian has a bad habit of catering to the lowest common denomenator, was this selection and placement because the imagery might be too disturbing or offensive to some?
-or-
was the artist editing himself, was he tired of the focus being on the klan imagery, was he afraid of depicting the whole south in the hallowed halls of the Smithsonian?
Is this an act of censorship? I don't know but to me it smells faintly of it. Please see the exhibit and judge for yourself.
Today for another class assignment I decided to visit the Smithsonian American Art Museum. I was happy to see that they were showing an exhibit about William Christenberry. I was even more pleased to note that he was the one who curated the show.
William Christenberry is probably most famous for his Klu Klux Klan images, which are oddly desettleing but nonetheless create an accurate description of one of the most unique cultures within the continential United States. The American South is an interesting place with an even more provactive and interesting history. It should come as no surprise that a man whose body of work seems to be concentrated solely on the South would use images of the KKK. To deny that part of our history would be telling of course an incomplete picture.
Christenberry has been suposedly threatened and intimidated by members of the Klan and the subject has been prevelant in a lot of his interviews.
Which brings us to the point of this post >>>
Why then were any of the images of the klu klux klan, seemingly hidden in an ill-lit corner of the exhibit? Why were there are two photographs, 1 glass doll and 3 paper transfers of Klan imagery?
The Smithsonian has a bad habit of catering to the lowest common denomenator, was this selection and placement because the imagery might be too disturbing or offensive to some?
-or-
was the artist editing himself, was he tired of the focus being on the klan imagery, was he afraid of depicting the whole south in the hallowed halls of the Smithsonian?
Is this an act of censorship? I don't know but to me it smells faintly of it. Please see the exhibit and judge for yourself.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Protest Coverage
On April 12, I attended an event put on by American University called “I Remember AU When… The Age of Protest”. This event focused on the dissident activities that had taken place on our very own campus in response to a number of issues, particularly the Vietnam War. A presentation was given showing pictures from the university’s archives that documented the students protests, and firsthand accounts were given by faculty and staff who had been students at AU during this time. The most interesting thing to me was the reprinting of an Eagle article from April of 1972 calling the students of American University as well as other universities in the area to mach on the capitol and demonstrate against President Nixon’s actions concerning the war. The article described the opinions of the students and called them to do all that they could to express their dissatisfaction with the President’s actions.
This was of particular interest of me considering that at American University we recently had our own brush with protest and dissident activities. There was a protest on our campus concerning Karl Rove and his actions as a member of President Bush’s administration. This event was given a great deal of coverage in the press as well as in our student newspaper. The Eagle published accounts of the protest from all sides, printing numerous articles, editorials, opinions and first hand accounts. While the events of the protest were rather unpleasant in the eyes of Public Safety and other members of the AU community, all sides were still represented in our paper.
I was pleasantly surprised to see the article from The Eagle in 1972 as well as the coverage of the Karl Rove protest. It indicated to me that The Eagle had always been a publication that was willing to publish controversial material, and that it was not subject to the kind of censorship that you may expect to find in these kinds of publications. While people have come down on both sides of each of these issues, I think the most important factor has been that there has been full, uncensored coverage of the events. I am proud to be at a university that does not censor its students, and allows them to express their views without repercussions. While the times and issues have changed, the fact that we have a forum to express our thoughts and opinions without censorship is something that I think is of great value to college students.
This was of particular interest of me considering that at American University we recently had our own brush with protest and dissident activities. There was a protest on our campus concerning Karl Rove and his actions as a member of President Bush’s administration. This event was given a great deal of coverage in the press as well as in our student newspaper. The Eagle published accounts of the protest from all sides, printing numerous articles, editorials, opinions and first hand accounts. While the events of the protest were rather unpleasant in the eyes of Public Safety and other members of the AU community, all sides were still represented in our paper.
I was pleasantly surprised to see the article from The Eagle in 1972 as well as the coverage of the Karl Rove protest. It indicated to me that The Eagle had always been a publication that was willing to publish controversial material, and that it was not subject to the kind of censorship that you may expect to find in these kinds of publications. While people have come down on both sides of each of these issues, I think the most important factor has been that there has been full, uncensored coverage of the events. I am proud to be at a university that does not censor its students, and allows them to express their views without repercussions. While the times and issues have changed, the fact that we have a forum to express our thoughts and opinions without censorship is something that I think is of great value to college students.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Don Imus Controversy
The recent controversy over Don Imus and his remarks about the Rutgers women’s basketball team has brought about an interesting discussion concerning censorship. While many people, myself included, feel that Don Imus was rightfully terminated from his position as a radio show host, it is interesting to examine his situation in relation to other recent controversial statements made by people in similar industries.
Ann Coulter has long been known to make outrageous and controversial statements, but many felt that she had gone too far when she used a homosexual slur to reference presidential candidate John Edwards. An actor on the popular television series “Grey’s Anatomy” used a homosexual slur to refer to one his castmates resulting in a brawl onset and public fallout. And Mel Gibson created a frenzy when in a drunken state he spewed a series of anti Semitic remarks. While there was public outcry over these situations, these people remain employed, while Don Imus has been let go. Don Imus has been effectively censored, while Ann Coulter is free to continue on as she pleases, making controversial and offensive statements if she so chooses. The actor on “Grey’s Anatomy” has attempted to make some amends by issuing an apology and entering treatment, as has Mel Gibson. Don Imus issued an apology as well, but that did not stop his termination. All of these other figures have been able to continue on with life as normal after a minor hiccup concerning their statements. Why is this not the same for Don Imus?
While I agree with the termination of Don Imus from his radio show, I think it is interesting to look at the different situations and try to determine why all of these people did not meet the same fate. Was it because of the different forums in which these remarks were made? Was it because of the difference in the sponsors and studios behind these people reacted differently? Was it because of different levels of public outcry? How has Don Imus been censored while all of these other offenders remain free to offend again without censorship? The answers are not crystal clear, but it is an interesting issue to examine.
Ann Coulter has long been known to make outrageous and controversial statements, but many felt that she had gone too far when she used a homosexual slur to reference presidential candidate John Edwards. An actor on the popular television series “Grey’s Anatomy” used a homosexual slur to refer to one his castmates resulting in a brawl onset and public fallout. And Mel Gibson created a frenzy when in a drunken state he spewed a series of anti Semitic remarks. While there was public outcry over these situations, these people remain employed, while Don Imus has been let go. Don Imus has been effectively censored, while Ann Coulter is free to continue on as she pleases, making controversial and offensive statements if she so chooses. The actor on “Grey’s Anatomy” has attempted to make some amends by issuing an apology and entering treatment, as has Mel Gibson. Don Imus issued an apology as well, but that did not stop his termination. All of these other figures have been able to continue on with life as normal after a minor hiccup concerning their statements. Why is this not the same for Don Imus?
While I agree with the termination of Don Imus from his radio show, I think it is interesting to look at the different situations and try to determine why all of these people did not meet the same fate. Was it because of the different forums in which these remarks were made? Was it because of the difference in the sponsors and studios behind these people reacted differently? Was it because of different levels of public outcry? How has Don Imus been censored while all of these other offenders remain free to offend again without censorship? The answers are not crystal clear, but it is an interesting issue to examine.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Chocolate Jesus Controversy
I really do believe that it is time for some serious reflection on art, culture, religion and the news media.
this is an image that i found from esquire magazine. the article that accompanies this image says nothing of the controversy .
The video shows not only the opinions of the artist but that of a man who declares to represent catholics everywhere. I am catholic but I am not exactly sure that I agree with this man's arguments. I really am struggling to see why so much attention is being given to this subject when there are other things much more controversially offensive things (i.e. war, politics and genocide) that a spokesperson of some clout could use his incredible networking abilities to banish from society.
This is not the first time society has ruled art to be too controversial to be shown. It is however a great example of censorship. It is often taught that artists have a social responsibility to shock and provoke those around them in order to create honest dialogue. Art categorically can not be categorized and apparently there is no proverbial boundary to be crossed. Art for art sake is often ridiculed but in reality can be framed as an important almost noble social cause.
At the Katzen Art Museum Gallery at American University in Washington DC, there is a show currently exhibited of grad student art. Included in this display is a mural or wall painting in which corpses are depicted in a sexual way. The imagery is shocking and provoking. There are other works that use religious imagery and references along side sexual taboos. The art here hasn't generated much controversy, but is shows a precedence for religion and sexuality. Also graduate students in the fine art department must defend their work. The curators of the show saw some social value in showing these images.
Is it because Jesus is naked? or is it timing, or even worse is it because its edible chocolate?
In my humble opinion I feel that this outrage and controversy is an old conversation that flares up from time to time. I also feel that the climate of this country and our general feeling of anxiety has a lot to do with what find acceptable at this time. We are unfortunately stressed and ultra sensitive to things we view as potentially dangerous, or provoking. There is too much upheaval we feel the need to strike out against and exert some dominance in order to feel control.
How do I feel about the chocolate Jesus? It is a shame that we spend so much of our energy censoring instead of questioning why something offends us. When there is something offensive and it is presented to us in the form of art there is usually a reason a great start to a potentially great conversation, in this the artists has succeeded.
Sunday, April 8, 2007
Internet Censorship:
There was great outrage when google.com provided a special edition of their powerful search engine to the Chinese government. The Chinese government was vilified for infringing upon people's basic rights to search unfettered. google.com was framed as a company that was perpetuating the oppressive regime's goal of complete dominance and control over the minutiae of everyday life. We all agreed that filtering the Internet created large disparities and opportunities. We all agreed that a government had no right to adopt measures that adversely affected individuals access and right to information.
Yet, our society, our very own government blocks valuable information provided by the internet every single day. We tout the internet as the great equalizer. Finally we have relatively cheaply a way to access information that is innumerable in variety. Our government with the passing of the Children's Internet Protection Act, mandated that all institutions that received federal funding for internet connections must use some form of Internet filtering.
At first glance this policy seems to protect children from potentially harmful material that can be found on the internet. It would be ideal to block all pornographic material from children as it is deemed to be psychologically damaging. Yet with imprecise technology, inadequate training and the very purpose of libraries, Internet filtering which starts out as a good concept for the protection of our nation's children ends up limiting access to important information and creating unfair privileges to information that the internet was supposed to eliminate.
It is true that not all Internet filters are created equal, but overwhelmingly studies have shown that Internet filtering is and incomplete and clumsy endeavor. The internet is vast, thousands of websites are created each day, it is therefore impossible that each site can be reviewed and evaluated effectively. Many internet filters rely upon technologies that simply look for phrases, or even words to block a site under designated categories. The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU school of Law is dedicated to the "pursuit of a vision of inclusive and effective democracy" along with the Free Expression Policy project published Internet Filters: A Public Policy Report, an 87 page document on the issue of Internet Filtering. They summarize;
The conclusion of the revised and updated Internet Filters: A Public Policy Report is that the widespread use of filters presents a serious threat to our most fundamental free expression values. There are much more effective ways to address concerns about offensive Internet content. Filters provide a false sense of security, while blocking large amounts of important information in an often irrational or biased way. Although some may say that the debate is over and that filters are now a fact of life, it is never too late to rethink bad policy choices.
Some of the reports more compelling evidence for discontinuing the use of Internet filters has little to dow with the inadequacy of Internet filtering technology but the disparities that arise when Internet filtering is used in places like libraries. It is hard to ignore the case that those who have more money not only have access to an unfiltered internet and therefore have a greater access to quality information but they also have the benefit of having the ability to make sure that their websites are not subjected to all to familiar blanket blocking of free internet hosting sites.
Stop Internet Filtering!
Yet, our society, our very own government blocks valuable information provided by the internet every single day. We tout the internet as the great equalizer. Finally we have relatively cheaply a way to access information that is innumerable in variety. Our government with the passing of the Children's Internet Protection Act, mandated that all institutions that received federal funding for internet connections must use some form of Internet filtering.
At first glance this policy seems to protect children from potentially harmful material that can be found on the internet. It would be ideal to block all pornographic material from children as it is deemed to be psychologically damaging. Yet with imprecise technology, inadequate training and the very purpose of libraries, Internet filtering which starts out as a good concept for the protection of our nation's children ends up limiting access to important information and creating unfair privileges to information that the internet was supposed to eliminate.
It is true that not all Internet filters are created equal, but overwhelmingly studies have shown that Internet filtering is and incomplete and clumsy endeavor. The internet is vast, thousands of websites are created each day, it is therefore impossible that each site can be reviewed and evaluated effectively. Many internet filters rely upon technologies that simply look for phrases, or even words to block a site under designated categories. The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU school of Law is dedicated to the "pursuit of a vision of inclusive and effective democracy" along with the Free Expression Policy project published Internet Filters: A Public Policy Report, an 87 page document on the issue of Internet Filtering. They summarize;
The conclusion of the revised and updated Internet Filters: A Public Policy Report is that the widespread use of filters presents a serious threat to our most fundamental free expression values. There are much more effective ways to address concerns about offensive Internet content. Filters provide a false sense of security, while blocking large amounts of important information in an often irrational or biased way. Although some may say that the debate is over and that filters are now a fact of life, it is never too late to rethink bad policy choices.
Some of the reports more compelling evidence for discontinuing the use of Internet filters has little to dow with the inadequacy of Internet filtering technology but the disparities that arise when Internet filtering is used in places like libraries. It is hard to ignore the case that those who have more money not only have access to an unfiltered internet and therefore have a greater access to quality information but they also have the benefit of having the ability to make sure that their websites are not subjected to all to familiar blanket blocking of free internet hosting sites.
Stop Internet Filtering!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)