The Whole World Is Watching?

Last Thursday, I went to the Defend Public Education Protest in Cal, and I was looking for a big turnout. However, Cal administration conspired with Homeland Security and created the artificial rainfall in the morning, which deterred a lot of potential protesters. One of my friends promised to go the day before and scratched that because he hated rain. 

Well, although the turnout in Bay Area was not that that big, I still find it arrogant for The Times not to cover the National Day of Action to Defend Education at all. It reminds me of how long it took The Times to cover the baton wielding police in Cal last semester. I do not know if it is The Times’ contempt for hippie heaven Cal or it is caused by The Times' severe financial crisis. However, Fox News also showed its ignorance for Thursday’s Protest, wasting an opportunity to condemn public education and its secret backer Obama. 

In comparison, San Francisco Chronicle cared much more about bay area as a local newspaper. It used a series of 10 photos taken across the bay to illustrate the event. Although the first photo only featured 5 protesters in San Francisco State University, the second photo captured a much bigger crowd in Cal. 

It seems that if we want to learn more about the Defend Education day turnout countrywide, we have to resort to independent media, like The Nation. In The Nation, a much longer article not only detailed the National Day’s events but also explained why students and faculty members had a good reason to go out and protest. However, there is still a problem with this article--it’s too long and it has no photo at all.   

San Francisco Chronicle

The Nation

Seeing Human Nature through the Lens of Youtube

January 28^th, last Saturday, I went to Occupy Oakland partaking in the Move-in day protest, during which time I shot some videos of the confrontation between the protesters and the police. These videos featured drum beating, fire bombs and chaos. It occurred to me to post the videos on Youtube. As a result, I had done nothing for the last three days but monitor my Youtube videos. When the number of my Youtube views flattened, I started to reflect on my experience during these three days. And here are some findings I want to share. 

 

We crave violence and there are numerous suppliers. When I first uploaded one seven-minute video of the clash between the protesters and the police, there were only a few views. I found the video title I had selected “Occupy Oakland Protest 1/28/2012” not attractive enough. Thus, I changed it to “Occupy Oakland Police Brutality”, betting that a provocative title would attract more views. The number of views increased a little but I was not satisfied. In search for a “better” title, I browsed some news on the Move-in day clash. The words “smoke bombs”, “tear gas”, and “canisters” struck my eyes. So, I changed the title to “Occupy Oakland 1/28/2012 Teargas”. Within minutes, I got 30 views and the next morning, I had 720. After that, I kept editing other features of my video, adding tags like “clashes”, “tensions”, and “fire bombs” to attract more eyeballs. This experience tells that if viewers crave violence, editors (like me) are more than willing to appeal to their desires.

In addition to our instinct for violence, we thirst for ego expansion at some expense to ourselves and others. Marxists reduce us to nothing but material seekers—they are probably wrong. I believe we all have a strong desire to get others’ attention and praise, often without material gain. In the last three days, I first updated my roommate about my video views and which channel or news used my footage. Then, I “@”ed several friends on Facebook and called my best friend to share my excitement. The next day, I briefed half of my karate club, and emailed video links to my GSIs and some familiar instructors. I was showing off and wanted everyone to know that my Youtube video had gotten 7,000 views.

However, what really disturbed me was that Oakland occupiers tweeted requests for putting down online videos because the police were using public footage to arrest protesters. I called one friend in law school and emailed a well-known legal consulting agency. My law school friend told me it was lawful for the police to use footage to arrest people, but she and the people she asked thought that Youtube videos would not be used against protesters. The agency’s lawyer replied that “from a purely legal standpoint, I'd advise against that [keeping the video public] until the chance of prosecution passes, but I understand there are competing interests here”. My video is still on Youtube and is still public. The competing interest here is probably my ego.

The day after I uploaded the videos, I got a Youtube inbox message from one guy who praised me for my courage and photography skills. Soon I discovered that he was trying to sell me a service from a website which helps uploaders boost their video views. I ignored him, but realized just how easily our passion can be exploited commercially. Moreover, I was really tired of the comments on my video. At the beginning, I had hoped to get 10 comments and now I ended up with more than 100. No enlightening thoughts about the roots of our crisis. No reflections and mutual understandings on the protest. Most of the comments were cursing words against the protesters such as “OccuScum” and “unbathed rats”. Someone even suggested that the police should use machine guns instead of tear gas. Incendiary comments between Occupy supporters and haters filled several pages.

After all is said and done, are we really changing anything by documenting protests and circulating footage on Youtube? Do people find these videos entertaining or disturbing? Do they crave more violent videos or strive to understand why protests are happening? Are we just perpetuating the status quo or moving forward progressively? I have no answer. What do you think?

               (My footage contributed to this RT video)