Social Media Activism and the Baltimore Riots

Freddie Gray. If this name doesn't bring something to your mind, you've been living under a rock. For weeks. Freddie Gray, 25, died in April after being illegally arrested which resulted in fatal injuries. He was carrying a pocket knife, which was perfectly legal, made eye contact with an officer and then ran away. The officers arrested him, and threw him in the back of a cop van face down with his feet shackled and in handcuffs. Over the course of about an hour, they made four stops along the way to check on him. Freddie wasn't doing well and said he couldn't breathe, multiple times. But the officers did nothing, although they knew he needed medical attention. They stopped to "check" on him but didn't bother to actually check his condition despite his pleas. When they got to the destination, he wasn't breathing at all. They finally called a medic who determined that he was in cardiac arrest and had severe injuries. Freddie died a week later from spinal cord injuries.

This is one of many in a string of recent accounts of police brutality resulting in the death of an unarmed Black man. It keeps happening. Actually, it's always happened, but what's changed in recent years is the way we share information through technology and social media. Now we can post a video, image, or anything and it is instantly shared around the world where anyone can access it. In the case of Walter Scott,  the bystander video of the events changed everything. The officer reported that Walter took his taser and so he feared for his life. In the video, we see that Walter was running away from, not towards the officer, and he shoots him in the back. We also see him putting his taser next to Walter's body. He reported a completely false story, and if it hadn't been for the video someone recorded on their phone, the whole case would have been swept under the rug.

People are pissed about these cases of excess force and brutality. And rightly so. People have been protesting each time these cases come out, like for Walter Scott, Eric Garner, Michael Brown Jr, and more. In Baltimore, people protested peacefully for a week. But the second that a few people decided to burn down the CVS and it became violent, the media was all over it. They didn't cover the peaceful protestors or the community coming together to fight a bigger issue, they only covered the violence of a few. Outlets like Fox only focused on the rioting and talking about how the "thugs" doing so are wrong, not why they're doing it or what the bigger picture is. The coverage leads people to thing that these "thugs" are just being destructive and that they represent all of the thousands of people there protesting, but they don't. Most of the protestors in Baltimore are peaceful, and cleaning up the trash and debris, and even trying to stop the violent protestors. But that's not what we see on TV and in the newspapers. So how do I, who is not from Baltimore, nor do I know anyone from there, know about the peaceful protestors? Social media.

The protestors took to twitter and other outlets to try to get the real message across, and to display their upset in the lack of media coverage of the peaceful demonstrations and the community coming together. People have been using hashtags like #freddiegray and #blacklivesmatter, to get more attention to the bigger picture. It's not just about Freddie Gray, it's about inequality and the history of violence and oppression against Black bodies by law enforcement. Social media has given activists an outlet to let their voices be heard. It creates a space that transcends borders and allows discussion of important topics that we don't see in the mainstream. Resistance is necessary for survival, because without it there would be no change.


Since all of these cases have been widely viewed, there has been talk that police officers will all soon have to wear body cameras at all times. If that happens that could be really helpful, as long as the officers can't control the cameras. Many people now know about the peaceful protests and that the violence in Baltimore is not representative of everyone. People are starting to get that there is a bigger picture, and it's all thanks to social media and the online activism that's been taking over the internet.

Apple and multicultural advertising

Apple. The products are great, people all over the world love them. In the U.S. we wait in line for hours to get them. We just have to have the coolest new gadget all the time. But there are some problems I see with Apple. It's a huge corporation with an international market. That means, the little guys get forgotten. With so much demand for the products, they just had to go out of the U.S. for production because god forbid a huge company with soooo much money can't afford to spend too much on its workers or the production of their merchandise, it's gotta be cheap cheap cheap so they can keep making there billions. So they take it to other countries like China, just like all the other huge corporations and every other product we have in the states, and they get there product made at a way cheaper price via the use of slave labor in giant, dangerous factories. 

And many of us know that. We know that nothing is made in the states anymore because it's cheaper to do it somewhere else. Some of us might know the costs that come with that too and how it affects the people that make our products. And yet, we still buy all of our iPads and iPhones. I'm guilty of it too. It's a part of our consumer society and our instant gratification mindset. There needs to be more transparency with such corporations, and more research on the consumer end.

Now all of the accusations about terrible working conditions came to light a few years ago. Since then Apple has vowed to try to correct the conditions and make things better for their out-sourced employees. They were going to spend $100 million building a manufacturing factory in Arizona, to create jobs in the U.S. and what not. But they canceled it. In 2013, it was revealed that there were 73 underage workers at one of the apple facilities. In 2014, they found 23. That's better.... I guess..

But for all the things Apple isn't doing right, lets talk about one thing they are doing right. This advertisement for the iPhone 5c is pretty cool. It shows people from all over the world enjoying their new iPhone 5c.



So I like how they're incorporating different cultures and people, showing that their product is for any and everyone. They made the 5c a little cheaper than the other iPhones as well, so they could widen their market reach. But this wasn't long after all the backlash about the factory working conditions. So could it have been just a Public Relations ploy? It's possible. But I think it worked. I know all the allegations against apple, and yet I still prefer their products. And watching this ad, I loved it, it made me feel good. The ad team definitely did their jobs right.

Now, we can appreciate the good things Apple is doing, but we still need to be critical and know what's going on. We can't be blinded by our consumerism. We still need to be smart and recognize the bigger picture and how what we do is important.

"Rape: It's Your Fault" - Satire

So this video is ... interesting. It's a great example of using satire to get a point across. The purpose of satire is to criticize in order to shame a target, person, group, idea, attitude, institution, social practice, etc. into reform. This video is using satire to shame the victim blaming attitude towards rape in order to bring awareness and reform to the idea. Any rape victim, whether they identify as male, female, or any gender in between, is not at fault.

I think what slightly bothered me about this video was how extreme it went, but that was the point. You are supposed to be bothered by it, that's why they showed the women looking more progressively beaten up throughout the video and actual instances of being attacked.

An example the video begins with are examples of "clothing that could cause rape". The outfits vary from a shirt and shorts to a full on astronaut uniform. The commonality they point out is that all of those outfits were worn by women. This was to get the point across that what a woman wears should not be blamed as the reason for rape. Women should be able to wear whatever they want without anyone attacking them, verbally or physically. If someone gets raped, it's not their fault. Period. This video gets that point across, if you didn't get it in the first 3 minutes, it clearly states at the end, "Stop Blaming the Victim".

Juvenalian is a form of satire that is biting and doesn't necessarily make you laugh. It's angry and points out things that make us uncomfortable. This video definitely uses juvenalian satire. I didn't crack a smile while I watched it, but that's because I understood the point the creators were trying to make. I have also had education in women's studies and learned about sexual violence and victim blaming, so to me it is a serious subject that people really do need to be more aware of.

However, if someone has not spent time learning about sexual violence and survivors, they may not understand this video. They might get the fact that it's a satire, that's pretty obvious. But they might not get the full extent of the point being made, and they could agree with the reversal of the truth that is presented.

This is why I've always had a bit of a problem with certain satirical television shows, like South Park and Family Guy. They say that they make fun of everyone so it's even. But it's still offensive, and if someone doesn't understand that there's a bigger point to such sarcasm, then they buy into the often racist, sexist, classist, and homophobic "jokes" and stereotypes. Therefore, i'm not entirely convinced that certain showcases of satire are more helpful than damaging. But in the case of this video, I would say that the message is portrayed in such a way that it is successful.

Cultural Appropriation and Cinco de Mayo

Ohh Cinco de Mayo, how us United Statesians* love you. We wear sombreros and mustaches and drink tequila all day to celebrate our southern neighbor, Mexico's Independence. But what most people don't realize is that dressing up in those costumes and celebrating how they do is actually cultural appropriation. If you think that this is not important and "cultural appropriation is bullshit" (literally one of the suggestions when you google cultural appropriation) then please see my previous post about color-blind racism and the four frames used to justify discrimination. It should prove to be enlightening.

May 5th is not Mexico's independence day. It's actually celebrated on September 15th and 16th to commemorate an uprising against Spanish rule in 1810. But many people think it celebrates a Mexican victory over the French on May 5th, 1862. It was a very important and profound victory so it was celebrated over the years in the Chicano community and eventually became a national holiday. But in the 1980's the alcohol companies started to capitalize on Chicano movements that used May 5th and it's rich history to rally. Ohh capitalism, profiting off of a culture like that is not okay.

Cultural appropriation is taking elements of another culture, often sacred and symbolic, and presenting it in a shallow manner. It turns someone's culture into a trend or commodity, and it is an act of privilege. The alcohol companies profit off of someone's culture, and it in no way gives back to the Mexican culture. If a Mexican identifying person were to walk down the street in the U.S. wearing a sombrero and traditional poncho, they would most likely be ridiculed or stigmatized in some way. The stigma doesn't stay when it's someone of the dominant culture, they can take it on and off when it's useful. There's the privilege. It simply displays the unequal power balance between cultures.

 As this poster suggests, using a culture as a costume is just not okay. This is also a problem around Halloween. Using someone's cultural symbols to satisfy a personal need for self-expression is also a privilege. And it comes with many historical and social implications. So just don't do it.

Cultural exchange is a mutual understanding that embodies equality and respect for another culture that is not your own. It is a respectful engagement by a humble and invited guest. Spend time immersed in the culture, truly try to understand the history of the people and who they are today, educate yourself, it's not the responsibility of someone in the culture to be your bridge and teach you everything. If you are really interested in cultural exchange, you will do the work.

So in a month when Cinco de Mayo comes around, instead of going out and buying a sombrero, think twice. Think about what that day really is and maybe go do some research for yourself, or spend some time getting to know someone that is Mexican instead of appropriating Mexican culture and exercising your privilege in vein.


*I use the term United Statesians because to use the term American is a privilege that only those in the U.S. can seem to claim, although North America is more that the U.S. So why aren't Canadians or Mexicans also Americans or why aren't we all just North Americans? Food for thought.

Television, ethnicity and color blind racism

There has been a recent shift in casting in prime television shows this season. Cristela, Black-ish, Fresh Off the Boat, Empire, How to Get Away with Murder, are a few of these new shows that have been some of the best, most watched, and critically acclaimed in a long time. The best part is there are more roles with actors of color who portray actually complex, multidimensional characters, and some of these shows even actually address issues of class and racism. As with any good thing, there has also been some ignorant backlash.  

This piece by Sonia Saraiya discusses the backlash and why it is ridiculous. Sonia cites a specific article written by Nellie Andreeva in which Nellie complains bout the amount of ethnic roles calling it unfair, and stating, "Instead of opening the field for actors of any race to compete for any role in a color-blind manner, there has been a significant number of parts designated as ethnic this year, making them off-limits for Caucasian actors." 

First of all, many people think that being color-blind is a good thing, but it's not. It's another form of racism. Ignoring the differences among and between races minimizes parts of a person's identity. You can't simply not see that someone is black. They can't ignore it on a daily basis, with the presence of institutional racism, so doing so is a form of privilege. People of color experience the U.S. differently, so thinking that everyone is the same is a flawed notion.

Second, TV shows with all white casts have been around forever, there are hundreds. So it's not unfair that the few shows we have today are all casts of people of color, its great, and very much needed. 

There are four frames used to justify the continued discrimination in color-blind racism. 

1. Abstract Liberalism- a focus on economics, the idea that everyone has the same chance, the "bootstraps" theory.

2. Naturalization - the notion that it's natural for blacks and whites to segregate and be with people that look like yourself. 

3. Cultural Racism - believing that the way people behave is attributed to their culture, creating a deficit. 

4. Minimization - believing that people talk about race too much, that the conversation is not important. 

Many people think that because we have a black president that we are in a post-racial society, but it's simply not true. People like Oprah and Obama are exceptional figures. Just because Oprah can do it doesn't mean any black person can just work hard and "make it". There is more to it that just pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. There is still racism today. It may not be necessarily as overt as it has been historically, but it is certainly still there, in our institutions, ingrained in our society and our structures. The only way you can ignore it is because you are privileged to not be faced with it on a daily basis, and in that case, you're too ignorant to see how important the conversation around racism is. 

Framing, Rolling Stone, and the Boston Bomber

According to Robert Entman, to frame "is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, casual interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described." So in other words, when something is framed a certain way it defines a problem, diagnoses a cause, makes moral judgements, and offers suggestions to remedy the problem.

Framing in journalism can be intentional or unintentional but it is most likely intentional. For example when Rolling Stone magazine put the Boston Bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on the cover.

Many people were outraged by this decision, and stores even refused to carry the issue. The media had been overflowing with images of victims who had been hurt in the blast, and they were graphic. This was a huge upset as any act of terrorism would be, across the nation, so people said that Rolling Stone was glorifying the bomber and the act.

It may seem as though it was a terrible decision for the editors to make. Why would they do that, when they could focus on the victims instead? But the editors did this purposefully. As I have mentioned in previous posts, there is always a conversation in the newsroom about what is covered and how.

The editors of Rolling Stone wanted to put Jahar on the cover because he is "young and in the same age group as many of [their] readers," which "makes it all the more important for us to examine the complexities of this issue and gain a more complete understanding of how a tragedy like this happens." They wanted to point out that this could have been anyone.

In the article  the writer had interviews from those who knew him as well as outlining his arrest. His friends said he was 'just a normal American kid," and his high school wrestling coach who 'loved [him] like a son' was completely shocked.  Multiple interviews from friends framed him as a kind, normal kid who was a Muslim but also American.

The framed problem in this article is that Jahar committed this act. The cause is that he was probably influenced by his older brother who had recently found religion, become passionate about it, and completely changed his life. Jahar had also recently started college and was having issues of fitting in, as well as coping with his parent's divorce, so he was perhaps trying to find himself like his brother had.

The moral evaluation in this article is that the writer wants us to understand more about where Jahar came from and what could have influenced him. Readers can understand from his friends that he seemed like a normal kid but you never really know what someone is thinking. Don't get me wrong, the article in no way glorifies him or makes him out as a hero at all. The writer just wants us to see that it wasn't a simple story. As far as remedies for the problem, there aren't really any offered. The author just points out from professional interviews about how isolation can affect someone.

This is a good example of the media purposefully using framing to get a point across. The author took a different angle on the story in order to show that you never know what's going on with someone, and anyone can commit such violent acts.

Boko Haram, Journalism, Agenda Setting and Gatekeeping

Journalists are the gatekeepers of the media, meaning that they are the ones who filter all the information that is broadcast to the public. They are also the agenda setters, which means that they have the ability, as the media, to decide what is important enough to be pushed to the public. If a particular topic is covered more often and more notable in the media, then the viewers will begin to think that it is more important. 

Take for example the lack of news coverage of the terrorist group Boko Haram's attack that killed 2,000 people in Nigeria. It was about the same time as the Paris terrorist attack at a French magazine, but the Boko Haram attack received much less media attention from the states as well as in Africa. Simon Allison, a journalist for the Daily Maverick who covers African news wrote an article about the attack and stated that, "It may be the 21st century, but African lives are still deemed less newsworthy - and, by implication, less valuable - than western lives."

12,000 Nigerians flee to Chad after Boko Haram attacks in January 2015.  - Credit: Turkish Weekly

There are discussions in the newsroom about what is newsworthy and what should or shouldn’t be covered. If the personal biases of people get in the way of that line of thinking, then the news is skewed. Another example of this is the fact that Black bodies are disproportionately represented in the media when it comes to issues of welfare and crime. I briefly mentioned this in a previous post about the show "Shameless". We always see black faces juxtaposed with those stories, and that leads to people thinking that all crime is done by people of color and that the only people on welfare are people of color. But that’s completely incorrect. We hardly see white people portrayed as poor or working class, but there certainly are white people in such situations. There are more white drug dealers than black, and yet we rarely see that represented. The lack of wide media coverage misleads the public and therefore when people shape their ideologies, they are again skewed. A study done by Travis Dixon showed that there are harmful psychological effects of overrepresenting white victims and black perpetrators in the TV news.

As gatekeepers, the editors and journalists have the power to change the way groups of people are represented in the media and the way stories are shaped. Many of those editors and those in the power positions are white and are affected by stereotypes so they may not realize the harm they are doing. They subconsciously portray people of color as criminals because they are the "other", outside of their privileged group. There needs to be more diversity in the newsroom and more discussion of how crime stories are presented and how not to racialize them.

Overall, I believe the bias lies in the individual, whether they are in the audience, the journalist, editor, or whatever they may be, it all comes down to each individual and their perspective that shapes their ideologies. As a journalist, you still have the duty to do your best at being impartial. And as consumers of the media we have to be critical of what we read and recognize our own biases.