Have You Ever Formally Protested or Boycotted Anything?

[sunshinehighway]

Perhaps the issue is our differences in the definition of the media.

Dictionary(.com) has the following definition for media: the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, magazines, and the Internet, that reach or influence people widely.

Dictionary(.com) has the following defintion for social media: websites and other online means of communication that are used by large groups of people to share information and to develop social and professional contacts.

Now perhaps you don't view FB, Twitter, Reddit, Instagram, etc as media and that's ok. But they are on the internet and can be used to influence people widely (and I don't think there is a question of at least some sites where that is their main goal). They are also forms of social media where people share all sorts of information and when that information is false or mostly false and shared to hundreds, thousands, millions of people in an instant...

Yeah it seems that is the case. When people talk about the media and the responsibility of the media I usually take it to mean actual news organisations which do have some journalistic standards.
Social media, to me, is different. When someone is talking about how the media reports x or y, I'm not thinking of my wacky relative who shares crazy memes.

 

[Kingdome8]

I have never protested. But tired of all the groups doing it. And the violence that comes with it. Wish one day the silent majority would march on. But we did win the election.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Yeah it seems that is the case. When people talk about the media and the responsibility of the media I usually take it to mean actual news organisations which do have some journalistic standards.
Social media, to me, is different. When someone is talking about how the media reports x or y, I'm not thinking of my wacky relative who shares crazy memes.

Well to everyone I know they don't distinguish fox news/cnn/local news/newspapers from FB, Twitter, Reddit, etc. It's really all the same to them..means of providing information to people and I think many people even understand that news organizations have their owns biases at times thus influencing people that way.

All and all it's just a difference in our opinions no harm no foul.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Well to everyone I know they don't distinguish fox news/cnn/local news/newspapers from FB, Twitter, Reddit, etc. It's really all the same to them..means of providing information to people and I think many people even understand that news organizations have their owns biases at times thus influencing people that way.

All and all it's just a difference in our opinions no harm no foul.

Oh of course. Honestly I never even thought when people talk about "the media" they would be referring to things like people sharing on fb or Twitter. It's something I will probably now consider when people talk about "the media".

 

[tvguy]

Oh of course. Honestly I never even thought when people talk about "the media" they would be referring to things like people sharing on fb or Twitter. It's something I will probably now consider when people talk about "the media".

It is a huge issue for those of us who work in "old school" media. People call us asking why WE aren't reporting a piece of information that we have determined is completely false, yet they tell us "well it's all over my Facebook feed so it must be true".
Never seen anything like it in my 42 years in the business. Then WE get lumped in with them as "the media". And full disclosure, it doesn't help that some in my industry DO put some of this false information on the air with out verifying, and or that WE have to be on Facebook and Twitter putting information out.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

It is a huge issue for those of us who work in "old school" media. People call us asking why WE aren't reporting a piece of information that we have determined is completely false, yet they tell us "well it's all over my Facebook feed so it must be true".
Never seen anything like it in my 42 years in the business. Then WE get lumped in with them as "the media". And full disclosure, it doesn't help that some in my industry DO put some of this false information on the air with out verifying, and or that WE have to be on Facebook and Twitter putting information out.

My mother-in-law has a journalism degree (she's 61 so it's not like she just graduated it's been a while) and yet she is one of the worst offenders when it comes to FB and believing all the false or mostly false stuff.

 

[AustinMommyofThree]

I have never protested. But tired of all the groups doing it. And the violence that comes with it. Wish one day the silent majority would march on. But we did win the election.

Purely from a technical perspective, the majority lost the election. The minority did win a majority of the electoral votes, but I don't think you can call it the silent majority when empirical evidence is that is was a minority. That is part of why the actual majority feels it important to not be silent on some issues any longer.

 

[SMD]

Why would you want to listen to anyone who is burning down your city? Why would you think them to have a sensible argument when they do not have sensible actions?

Take Women's March--if you research and read what it was about for most of the people there, they had a good message. They were marching for some good points that need to get across. But, no one is listening. You know why? Because rather than speak on the issues they laid out on their website, they had a few screaming ninnies up there "speaking" and the whole message got turned off. No one was listening. And now its hard to go back and get anyone see that there ere good reasons to march. (I know they were not rioting)

The students had Berkley may have had a perfectly legit reason for protesting. No clue because no one is listening.

BLM has a message. They have something that needs to be heard. But, because of so much rioting, no one is listening.

You sure like to portray things as black and white when no such extremes exist. But responding in such a way to anything that you have a negative emotional reaction to but can't otherwise rebut is a great way to suppress opinions or derail discussions.

Again, I agreed with the March. But have heard again and again and again how it was pointless and just a bunch of unhappy women that are not oppressed. Not because they knew the issues and disagreed but because all they knew of it was one or two speeches. Maybe better speakers? All I am saying is there was/is a message that needs to be heard. Changes that need to be made. But if all anyone knows is what came from Madonna, they may never agree or hear any of that. The more people that agree with an issue, the more likely change will come.

Hundreds of thousands of women were there marching before any speakers uttered a word, so they didn't get their information from just two speeches. If all anyone knows of the march is what little was aired of Madonna then I'd say they're deliberately closed to finding out more.

 

[Colleen27]

Not saying media is not a cop out but I'm not downplaying it's role either.

Have you been on FB lately or in the past year or two? Most of the people I know...and believe me I find it sad...get most of their information regarding political issues from FB. It's not hard for sure to go and check out the information but it's rarely done at least with was seems to circulate around FB.

When I was watching the debates I would go to the fact checking website but I highly doubt that those around me would do that (I know my husband does he's like me in that sense). In a world where so much of our information is gathered from social media it also takes a person who actively chooses to question what they heard, what they are seeing.

I love to talk politics with my in-laws but it's a bit hard to have an intelligent conversation with my mother-in-law (and my husband completely agrees on this) when she believes every darn word she sees on FB..and guess what? FB learns what kind of news you want to hear. So you click on a link from an extremely questionable website and when you get back to FB your suggested posts are just more and more and more of that stuff that only reaffirms your stance. It's so nice that the election is over because my husband was starting to get tired of being in FB wars (though in a nice way) with his mom because all he was doing was pointing out what she was sharing, what she was soooo outraged about..was completely false or mostly false.

I tend to read "media" as "mass/professional media", with social media as something else entirely. FB and other social media have become absolutely insane, and the fact that so many people - even otherwise intelligent people - exercise zero critical thinking about viral content makes me seriously worry for the future of our country.

And I totally know where you're coming from with the family issues. For the sake of family harmony my husband asked me to stop fact checking the frankly insane things my MIL would share, because every time I (gently, I thought) pointed out the fact that something wasn't true she'd get her feelings hurt. She's still mad at me for fact-checking a long rant she shared about women's rights on the day of the March. Now pretty much all she posts is complaints about being "bullied" for her political beliefs (because that's how she sees fact-checking) and how FB isn't fun anymore because of people who just won't shut up about causes and political issues.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

If millions of people protesting all around the world doesn't make someone interested enough to find out what it was all about beyond Madonna being a non dis friendly word, then that's on them, not the media.

Of course the flip side of that is if the millions of protesters actually have a cohesive message, the World will hear it loud & clear - whether they agree, disagree, or fall somewhere in the middle. The fact that so many are confused on the message says the message isn't clear.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Purely from a technical perspective, the majority lost the election. The minority did win a majority of the electoral votes, but I don't think you can call it the silent majority when empirical evidence is that is was a minority. That is part of why the actual majority feels it important to not be silent on some issues any longer.

Well, if we're really going to be technical, the ACTUAL majority of Americans didn't even cast a vote. 325 million Americans cast 128 million votes with no more than 65 million going to any one candidate. So, it's a little presumptuous to assume the actual majority identifies with the electoral winner OR the popular vote winner.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Of course the flip side of that is if the millions of protesters actually have a cohesive message, the World will hear it loud & clear - whether they agree, disagree, or fall somewhere in the middle. The fact that so many are confused on the message says the message isn't clear.

I don't really think so many are unclear on the message though. At least not in the case of the Women's March. The poster I was quoting kept saying people didn't get it so my posts were referring to that only, not whether or not I believe it's true.
Also it seems to be the trend for people to pretend they don't understand something when they really just disagree with it.

 

[SMD]

I don't really think so many are unclear on the message though. At least not in the case of the Women's March. The poster I was quoting kept saying people didn't get it so my posts were referring to that only, not whether or not I believe it's true.
Also it seems to be the trend for people to pretend they don't understand something when they really just disagree with it.

Or to intentionally misdirect. Or fixate on one small aspect or even one person and blow that out of proportion. Because they think if they can dissent loud enough, it becomes truth.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I tend to read "media" as "mass/professional media", with social media as something else entirely. FB and other social media have become absolutely insane, and the fact that so many people - even otherwise intelligent people - exercise zero critical thinking about viral content makes me seriously worry for the future of our country.

And that's why I said maybe the issue was our (meaning me and the other poster) definition of media. I know that to many media means what it used to mean before the digital era but to many it means all of those things mentioned (FB, Twitter, newspapers, local/national news, etc) without separating them out. Knowing that can make a difference when you are speaking with someone especially when you don't agree with them. I personally think the media (and I'm meaning all those things mentioned for the sake of understanding me) can be used as a cop out but I also understand the powerfulness of it and the effect it can have on a person (in the good way and the bad way).

And I totally know where you're coming from with the family issues. For the sake of family harmony my husband asked me to stop fact checking the frankly insane things my MIL would share, because every time I (gently, I thought) pointed out the fact that something wasn't true she'd get her feelings hurt. She's still mad at me for fact-checking a long rant she shared about women's rights on the day of the March. Now pretty much all she posts is complaints about being "bullied" for her political beliefs (because that's how she sees fact-checking) and how FB isn't fun anymore because of people who just won't shut up about causes and political issues.

Yeah my husband (and thank-goodness it was him and not me lol) didn't post replies for the purpose of fact checking on all his mother's posts...that would end up being a full-time job at least at certain points throughout the last year to two. He did it nicely but you could tell where there were times where she took offense to it or would respond "well hunny you just don't know the things I know" ...ok then.

FWIW I unfollowed (though I didn't unfriend) her and plenty of other people who kept sharing that stuff. ETA: As the meme goes "Ain't nobody got time for that"

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I don't really think so many are unclear on the message though. At least not in the case of the Women's March. The poster I was quoting kept saying people didn't get it so my posts were referring to that only, not whether or not I believe it's true.
Also it seems to be the trend for people to pretend they don't understand something when they really just disagree with it.

Oh I disagree. I think there are a LOT of people who just don't get a clear message of what it was all about. I haven't seen those kind of comments about any of the other recent protests, just this one.

 

[pat fan]

Oh I disagree. I think there are a LOT of people who just don't get a clear message of what it was all about. I haven't seen those kind of comments about any of the other recent protests, just this one.

I think there were too many messages and it muddied the waters. As I stated previously (missing now ) that I support the March for historical context and general awareness of women's issues and obviously as a free speech issue. I'll add I wish it had encompassed more actual issues women are really facing across the globe that I dare not address here, but it seemed it was more a protest of something I can't name combined with general venting and hating. Totally muddied it for me and it lost it's meaning. The media, both large scale (major networks) and small (as in FB etc...) ALL of them that I saw focused on the nasty. Even people I know who were there, what they were posting pictures etc..of, with a very small exception, was vulgar things. Again, for me, that squashed any "real" issues that may have been discussed. All I heard was nasty.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I think there were too many messages and it muddied the waters. As I stated previously (missing now ) that I support the March for historical context and general awareness of women's issues and obviously as a free speech issue. I'll add I wish it had encompassed more actual issues women are really facing across the globe that I dare not address here, but it seemed it was more a protest of something I can't name combined with general venting and hating. Totally muddied it for me and it lost it's meaning. The media, both large scale (major networks) and small (as in FB etc...) ALL of them that I saw focused on the nasty. Even people I know who were there, what they were posting pictures etc..of, with a very small exception, was vulgar things. Again, for me, that squashed any "real" issues that may have been discussed. All I heard was nasty.

I do have to say 99% of everything I saw from traditional media was positive.

And I don't want to come off as attacking the event. My cousin - whom I love dearly - marched and I know EXACTLY why. But, when I hear people say they don't know what it was all about, I don't believe for a second they're just saying that to hide the fact they disagree with the message. I believe they're being honest.

 

[pat fan]

I do have to say 99% of everything I saw from traditional media was positive.

I'd say 25% was actually "positive" in that it showed the large crowds etc.... I guess in my mind the other 75% was "negative" because I didn't hear what it was about other than the, what I would call "offensive", comments. And that was from my locals, with probably 10 minutes of Fox and 10 minutes of CNN because that's all I can handle, lol!

I also know women who marched, and I know why THEY marched, and it was not for any particular rights, or historical appreciation.

 

[tvguy]

My mother-in-law has a journalism degree (she's 61 so it's not like she just graduated it's been a while) and yet she is one of the worst offenders when it comes to FB and believing all the false or mostly false stuff.

I'm only a year younger than her. Has she been working in the industry? One of the first tests I was taught when evaluating any story was to ask "Really, how can that be?"

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I'm only a year younger than her. Has she been working in the industry? One of the first tests I was taught when evaluating any story was to ask "Really, how can that be?"

She worked for over 10 years as an editor for a magazine. I don't remember what kind but I know it wasn't fluff-type magazines.

But I would think anyone with a degree in journalism would be able to utilize those questions like that one you mentioned of "really how can that be". It's not meant as a put-down to my mother-in-law but more it's clear that even those with at least some training don't necessarily utilize it when looking at articles and such on all various types of places where you get your information from.