1.
2.
3.
4.
The pictures above were pulled from The Guardian since both Aljazeera and BBC had videos and no pictures.
Alright, so as we continue on with class I've been trying to fine tune my approach to my stories and found that it might be easiest to maintain the course of the material to which we have gone over for that week while maintaining my goal of showing how each news source plucked shows the same stories or articles as best as I can. The sources themselves will never be the same as I want to be able to keep this blog a little fresh. So for this blog I have chosen the subject of the Boston "free-speech" protest/rally. As it seems to be relevant on a number of counts. The news sources I've decided to go with this time are BBC, Aljazeera, and RT. Yes, I am aware that two of the three have been used however each week I will attempt to change it up again with a new group of new sources. In addition to this I have a special article I will post from NPR which goes with how I feel the governments response and countermeasure to internet activism and the ability to assemble. So here we go...
http://www.aljazeera.com/video/news/2017/08/boston-hold-massive-free-speech-rally-170819075717361.html
I start off with Aljazeeras article on the subject which mostly consists of a video and short text to supplement the the video itself.
Here in the video we have interviews with a highschool girl Marri Gashaw who feels as though being a black female in America has left her feeling under potential threat simply by existing and addition to this the growing white nationalists organizing only reinforces her belief that this is the case. Monica Cannon believes that America is founded upon white supremacy and that laws themselves are inherently racist as they favor white people all together. John Medlar is apart of the "free speech" movement group which claims that politicians have fallen pray to the PC movement (if you will) has led to an unfair narrative and even though he does not agree with the alt-rights racism and hatred finds himself aligning with that same very cause. Medlar claimed to have had the rally set up prior to all of the issues in Charlottesville, VA. The rally was under consideration to be canceled but realized that the issue had grown larger and people would arrive with or without the rally. As tensions grow, it is even hard for myself to see the line between the white supremacist groups and simply right leaning ideology which claims the "left" is getting out of hand. Wouldn't it simply be easier as someone who is more right ideologically yet does not agree with white supremacist ideals to just back away from this mess? I'd assume your message becomes less in value as you side yourself with these kind of people and this kind of rhetoric?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The next article I chose was an article from BBC also addressing the Boston Protest. Much like the previous article, BBC presents a video and supplemental text as to give summery of said video. This video, unlike the Aljazeera article takes place around the rally itself not the subject of the protest and before hand. FIRST! I would like to say that there is a difference between those who are right leaning politically and those who tend to be Alt-right. If people cannot differentiate between these two then you'll only make those who don't side with the Alt-right alienated into the same people you accused them of. That's the poison of rhetoric. If one continues to call people Nazis simply for having a conservative ideology then you ultimately produce that. With that being said, let's get back to the article at hand.
http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-40989978/boston-protest-thousands-surround-free-speech-rally
BBC starts with an already apparent bias toward a conservative party simply showing the large number of "anti-protest" groups which at its core are limiting these individuals LIBERTY TO protest. The reporter used the term "so called" free speech rally. The fact is, unless there are acts of violence anyone in America has the liberty and right to be able to speak their mind. Even if you do not agree with them the act of violence itself impedes upon the basic liberties which the constitution was meant to uphold. Now let me be clear. I do not advocate for hate groups nor racially elite individuals. I personally find the subject for those who are far too ignorant to understand no one chose the color of their skin at birth and it does not define you nor determine your outcome in life. I do however see that BBC looks to discredit the rally itself to do the general association the right has all together with extremists in their "political sect" however this is also the case on the left and in terms of religion (in all aspects). I will add however, that it was the anti-protesters who did get aggressive with the police officials. If one has a permit to gather for protest then they have the right to do so, even if you disagree with it. You've the right to protest against said gathering.
I'm disappointed that there was no interviews with people within this event on the part of BBC. Otherwise, this is simply speculative. There is no objective approach to this article.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.rt.com/usa/400579-boston-rally-assault-police-officers/
Lastly, RT which seems to be - out of the three - the only one that decided to actually put quantitative data in their report and not basically op eds. RT report speaks of those who were arrested. Stating that some individuals were throwing objects at police and out of the 18 defendants arrested during the August 19th "event" in Boston 15 of the individuals were arrested on the accusation of assutiof a police officer. Police reported that one individual wearing body armor had on his person, one loaded gun as well as four knives. In my opinion, there is intent there.
The number of people at this "event" made its way into the number of 40,000 people and although both parties seemed to conduct themselves peacefully there were those whom did not follow this statement. An additional statement said over all out of the 33 people that were arrested 4 were carrying some kind of weapons.
The original purpose of the rally had to do with the issue of the Confederate statues being taken down. Whatever your position on this is you have to agree that it has become something more than just simply history that is being uprooted here and with this history there is a lot of emotion. I like to think of it like a band-aid.
A week prior, during the Charlottesville rally brought light to a group calling itself "Antifa" which has in response has resulted in a petition of around 250,000 signatures requesting Antifa to be categorized as a terrorist group.
In the end, I'm all for unbiased and objective reporting and it's sad to see that the only true reporting seems to be occurring with the Russian Television New Network. It's almost as though there is a divisive agenda being set forth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alright! After all that headache and right of assembly let us speak upon the reactionary aspect of the social media, activism and the response of the state to combat it!
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/24/545843131/judge-says-government-can-search-protest-site-records-with-safeguards
This article is brought to you by NPR here in Atlanta.
A government request was approved by a judge in Washington D.C which grants access to website data used to organize protests (mostly used in protest of Trumps inauguration). Now, the original reason for this might have been to keep individuals from rioting and causing damage to area and to maintain order yet the issue isn't in the ability to maintain order but that this gives a snowball effect. While this is allowed to happen, other departments might use this in other ways which would ultimately work against free speech and basic privacy online. Where do you draw the line on this? Soon, it seems as though any opposition what so where will be tracked and pinpointed. For me, I can't help but to think of V for Vendetta in which the government controls every aspect of your lives and coercion keeps those from speaking against the state. My issue is this is the same problem we faced with the wiretapping of from the federal government. The argument people made was "I'm not doing anything wrong so I don't see the issue in this". The fact of the matter is this is a blatant move against your basic liberties as Americans. As well, now your names can be given out to investigative agencies to stream line the process which aims to protect YOUR identity. Again, the issue is at what point do these measures become too much? Each and every move made my the state seem to encroach upon your rights and liberties as a "free" people. While we all squabble over social issues a more sinister agenda is occurring and while we fight among ourselves a larger cage is being dropped all around us.
When we are divided we are easier to control. Keep that in mind. A NETWORK IS EASIER TO MANAGE AND DESTROY THAN A GROUP WITH STRUCTURE (HIERARCHICAL OR NOT).
Have a wonderful day and keep opening your mind to different ideas. :)
