1. The authors believe violence is a crucial way to be visible on the public screen. Since everyone with access to the public screen(s) are always distracted, those individuals habituate to the distractions where everything is almost tuned out. Violence would act as a spectacle to sensitize everyone and put focus on the protest.
2. Specific evidence for how violence is crucial to be on the public screen would be with the WB/WIMF protests. There wasn't coverage about the event when there wasn't any violence (195). In another instance, Doha, Qatar was chosen as the site for WTO meetings in order to decrease the likelihood of violence about the meetings. "Consequently, there was absolutely no TV evening news coverage" (195). For the Seattle protests, the coverage escalated when the violence broke out in comparison to more modest coverage about the protest in the beginning.
3. The evidence suggested above seems legitimate because the amount of violence positively correlates with the amount of coverage that protest event receives. Showing the escalation of coverage vs violence contributes the most to this conclusion because it shows how violence puts the protest out there and makes it a focus that most screens want to broadcast.
4. Violence is necessary to disseminate the arguments of the protest for people to see it and understand what is actually happening. It's also noted in the section is that it's not just the violence that is being broadcasted, but the protestor's opinion and why they are actually protesting. This would make the violence not be in vain.
5. The group mostly agrees with the claims and conclusions.
No comments:
Post a Comment