Reading Response - Tatical Media

The main point that resonated with me throughout all of these readings is the caution, echoed in earlier readings, about ascribing a morality to the Internet. Scholz makes the point that the social web is a tool, and one that is limited particularly if the users don’t know what to do with it. The Internet is not inherently good or bad; it is not inherently democratizing or liberalizing; it is not inherently anything, except for a network of fiber optic cables and a few million lines of code (or, perhaps, a series of tubes, if you’re Ted Stevens – but it’s not a truck!) I find this impulse to believe that the Internet can magically transform something into freedom, liberty, or democracy troubling and a little alarming. The chapter on Stormfront demonstrated that concept quite well. Just like with Al Qaeda, the Web is a tool for organization and creating community – for better or for worse. It is frightening to think of the growing numbers of white supremacists or terrorists, but on the other hand, their emergence on the Web also allows for a better understanding of their numbers and message tactics. As Scholz says, at its core, the Web is about networking humans through technology. It’s still about people taking action. Scholz also says that in the online world, one has to believe that gestures mean something. I’d posit that one has to believe that too – the gesture of voting (one vote really does not determine the outcome alone), of protests (mass movements seldom sway government policies), of petitions (signatures alone do not change laws). I’m not belittling these forms of activism, but they are still gestures that have power because people believe they do. Scholz also makes a good point about “engagement beyond cathartic couch experience of watching blockbuster films” – this feeling that you’ve done something just because you clicked “Become a Fan” on Facebook or retweeted a message. The biggest challenge faced by tactical media – or anyone wanting to spur social change – is transmitting message delivery into action. It is of course important to employ tactical media as an alternative news outlet, as an agent provocateur, but there are limitations on tactical media in creating follow-through in the audience.


My other thoughts were primarily about Jon Stewart and The Daily Show. His appearance on Crossfire was not the only time that the “genuine” Stewart took over from the court jester – his response to September 11th (linked below) was one of the most moving, commentaries on the attack that I have seen. Beyond moving, it was real – it resonated more with me than the talking heads and political blowhards on cable news networks. Boler and Turpin make this point quite well, that Stewart’s appeal lay largely in his ability to articulate what many people are thinking and feeling. And he articulates it to people that we would never have the ability to confront ourselves – other examples of this include his interviews with Bill Bennett and Jim Cramer. One aspect that Boler and Turpin missed, I think, is the relationship of money to content. Stewart is allowed to do what he does because it makes Viacom money – it’s the same restraint placed on other news outlets. If the money dynamics change, would Stewart and The Daily Show still be allowed to do what they do? Or would they be forced from cable into alternative, tactical media outlets? The point the authors made about Stewart being upfront about his “complicity with the spectacle” is very important – not only does it add some degree of authenticity and trustworthiness to him, but it also defuses the attacks Fox News has tried to launch against him. (There’s an example of Neil Cavuto trying to criticize Stewart and calling him not a very “fair and balanced source of comedy,” but I couldn’t find the video or transcript link.)

Jon Stewart’s 9/11 commentary

Daily Show calls out Fox News for Flubbing Footage