In praise of clarification...

Well, I have no excuse. (actually, I have one, but won't use it, cause it's lame...)

The systems of information exchange I was referring to in the earlier post was meant to indicate corporate mass media systems, ie: tv, radio, newspapers, and magazines. Karen's comment made me understand the need to clarify (thanks, and I'll do better next time!)

I think the best hope of obtaining and disseminating accurate and truthful information on the ground is via tools like internet blogs, podcasting, and self publishing. Not because you can trust everything you read or hear from these outlets, but because they are received with an implied caveat: cross check the facts. I think one can more easily determine truth (or fiction) because at least there some degree of access to the originator and you can pose questions. Mainstream media seems to be pretty monolithic; you have to take what you get. I'm a big proponent of "make your own media", for information dispersal and entertainment. Think about it: a guy or girl with a video camera taping a demonstration and posting it for people to see without being edited or spun probably gets you closer to the truth than footage on the 6 oclock news. Give me raw information anytime over something distilled, digested, analyzed and presented on a silver platter. I'm reasonably intelligent, and I can think for myself.

That's where I think we need to build new systems of information exchange, and to expand the idea, gathering. As average people in the street and on the scene we could gather raw material, uncensored and not contaminated by commerical interest, and present it to our peer groups and the world at large for review, discussion and action. Focus could be kept on problems, instead of diverted to take advantage of news cycles. For example, the information you can glean from regular people blogging and emailing from the gulf coast is quite different than you get from news outlets. There are enormous challenges and problems down there that aren't getting the attention they deserve. Same with this stupid war. Compare and contrast news reports and government analysis with some of the information we get from soldiers on the ground that are able to communicate via email or blogs. There are huge discrepancies. One has to ask why?

The systems I speak of building require only a couple of things: access and distribution. We can build our own networks: an email, fact checked and widely distributed via a mail tree, or video, the same way. Blogs of course, cross linked. Snail mail. Telephone trees. Xerox copies of vital news, or even something as simple as letters to editors. A single question, asked directly and repeatedly until we get an honest answer is a powerful tool. All the resources we need already exist. We just need to use them better.

I'm not so great at articulating this. Karen referenced an essay she wrote in her comment on my last post. The title is On Internet Activism. I'd highly recommend you read it. She lays out the argument and gives examples much better than I could.

I'm interested in this topic for several reasons but am not qualified to say much more about it. (this is why I rarely delve into such areas in a public arena). Part of it is that I'm convinced in the power of small art to change the world. It's just a matter of getting people to look and see and engage and begin thinking. Kate's piece (which initiated these last two long rambling posts of mine) is but one example of a small and powerful artwork that can change minds, IF enough people are exposed to it. There are lots of similar work out there, in all kinds of media. Our challenge is how to get it in front of the masses. And more importantly not the masses that automatically agree with our positions, but with those that would disagree but are able and willing to think and question and consider alternatives.