Week 2 De Lyser: Am I shallow?

Wow.

When I started viewing the assigned videos for this week, I was planning to do what the assignment said:  at least two videos for about 30 minutes.  Three hours and 10 videos later, I was still clicking through the WITNESS site and hadn’t written a word.  Is that a positive or a negative, I wonder?

WITNESS is an impressive organization producing incredibly compelling videos.  Though Kelly Matheson was perhaps not the best ambassador for the organization, TEDX still provided an enticing introduction to work WITNESS is doing.  The WITNESS slogan says it all: “See it, Film it, Change it: Exposing the truth:  1 Video at a time.”

Most of my professional experience is in print journalism; I’m not as tapped into the video world as many of you are. So perhaps I am more naïve when it comes to the changing “landscape of video” that has fostered the challenges that Matheson references.  She says, “We really have to look, to inform human rights defenders about the risk they could be facing.”

I understand and support what she’s saying – taking a political stand against anarchist governments is decidedly risky, to say the least.  My question is – and again, pardon my nativity – is that risk associated with speaking out greater with video than it is on other media platforms?  If so, is the risk greater because video is more engaging and/or more viral than the print/radio/television from 30 years ago?  Is it the medium itself or its ability to be transmitted globally?

The WITNESS site was fascinating. I watched several videos.  One in particular, Our Voices Matter Congolese Women Demand Justice and Accountability   (gender-based violence), I watched twice.  The second time I viewed it was after I had been on the Engage Media site.  Frankly, after seeing the WITNESS videos, I found myself somewhat critical of the Engage Media site.  I watched “Our Voices Matter” to try to pinpoint why one site was so much more compelling.

Honestly? It was a question of technological quality. And that feels shallow.  The issues championed on both websites are equally strong, the needs are equally great, the causes equally noble.  Yet I was less engaged with the Engaged Media site.  I’m probably not alone in this.  What does that say about us?  I expect to be more engaged by a slick television commercial vs. the “not available in stores” versions.  But when it comes to documentaries on social justice, shouldn’t we be able to disassociate ourselves from the Hollywood experience and focus on what’s really important?  Have we been so inculcated to slick cinematography/videography that we can’t fully engage without it?  Or am I being overly idealistic?

In the wake of last night’s WITNESS video fest, I watched a video from The Daily Show.  Jon Stewart was interviewing Malala Yousafzai.  I realize a talk-show host – let alone Jon Stewart – interviewing a human rights activist cannot be legitimately compared to a documentary in terms of serious activism.  Yet Yousafzai  is a particularly compelling young woman.  Jon Stewart aside, I found the interview almost as engaging as “Our Voices Matter,” despite the slick commercialism associated with The Daily Show.  Is this because I have been programmed to respond to a talk-show format?  Or is it truly because Yousafzai’s story and presence is inspirational and moving?

I fear this class is contaminating my ability to passively engage in commercial television.  I suspect that’s a good thing.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

4 comments to Week 2 De Lyser: Am I shallow?

  • summerh@uoregon.edu

    From what I understood, the reasons Matheson gave for why video is more risky is that: 1. If someone is confiscated for something there is all the metadata that is stored on their phone or other video capturing device which can be used to incriminate them. 2. Video can accidentally capture someone who does not want to be filmed, often without their knowledge, and this can then be enhanced and used to identify people. And 3. It does run the risk of going viral, and this can happen extremely quickly. These are all part of the reason for the app they were talking about developing to automatically erase all metadata on a phone or other video capturing device should someone be confiscated, and to be able to blur out faces in your videos. It is also the reason why they have the videos for people to watch before they go out and filmed, so they can be educated about the potential risks and know how to try to avoid them. I think a lot of why video goes viral so quickly is because yes, it can be very engaging. When you read a story it requires your own imagination to fill in the gaps and create mental images. But with video it fills in those gaps for you, it is in your face and unavoidable. You actually hear the raw emotion in a person’s voice, you see the lines in their face when they cry, you are witness to bulldozers running over a house while a crippled old man tries to hobble away.

    I don’t think you are shallow for thinking the technological quality makes something more compelling. Its not just hollywood, its natural. You can think of it in terms of writing. If you have two decent stories, and one is full of grammatical errors and not told with much detail, while the other is flawlessly edited and full of deep descriptions, which one is going to be more compelling?

    • delyser@uoregon.edu

      I understood Matheson’s reasons as well. However, if a phone is confiscated, are not the still images just as potentially damaging to the subjects as the video? What about the text messages and emails that the phone contains or has sent? Do they have the potential to leave behind metadata? (I’m fairly certain the images do; I’m less sure about the texts and emails). Yes, video can capture someone who does not want to be captured. So do cameras that have been used to cover protests since Eastman Kodak became a household word. Images and text can also go viral quickly. But I agree that there is something particularly compelling about video which makes it more engaging and more likely to go viral. However, the risk is there for all media, and precautions should be taken for all – not just the subjects of a video.

      • summerh@uoregon.edu

        I agree with you as well, there is risk for all media, and precautions should definitely be taken for all. And I have definitely seen cases where images or text have gone viral and caused someone’s demise. The thing about text though, is that it is usually more intimate, and doesn’t really lend itself to catching bystanders in the crossfire and making them also identifiable the way image and video do. Also, for some reason, and I’m not totally sure why, seeing an image, especially one that’s moving and that is audible, it just seems so much riskier to me. Maybe its because it is so difficult to refute? For example, if someone were to try to use a text message to incriminate me, I could potentially argue that someone else used my phone to send that message. Or similarly with email. And even if someone had an incriminating photo of me, I could potentially argue that I was set up or that its not what it looks like, or maybe its out of context. But if someone had video of me clearly doing something, it seems like that would be the most difficult to argue against, as well as the easiest to recognize who was who via image and sound detection. Luckily, I never do anything I shouldn’t, and especially not in front of a camera 🙂 Jk. Thanks for making me think deeper about this!

  • bjh@uoregon.edu

    After reading your blog post here I decided to go back to the WITNESS and Engagemedia sites, and I have to say I completely agree with you. WITNESS is far better at connecting with the viewer and really pushing across their message. Meanwhile with Engagemedia I almost felt somewhat detached from the whole situation, as if I was just watching a short documentary and then moving on with my day.
    I think this is because of the way WITNESS has gone about collecting and putting their videos all together in what feels like a collective strand. I can watch a :30 second clip and then a five minute video all on the same subject. Meanwhile with Engagemedia it felt like it was often just a single video and then we move on to the next topic. No time to really form a connection with the story.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>