Testing The First Amendment
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/12/1130659/-This-is-How-Bad-It-s-Gotten-In-Wisconsin-Must-See-Video-And-Panic-Buttons
Hey guys!
I thought this video was pretty interesting and provoked a few questions:
Do you think Wisconsin has the right to create this law or is this a case for the national government to step in and reinforce the first amendment?
Do you believe the video makes the story more effective than if just an article was written?
The writing after the video seems rather opinionated, is the author and/or website being biased about the situation? Or just reflecting the true intensity? (Thanks for the help, Emma.)
posted by Anonymous @ 6:45 PM
5 Comments:
This video was very interesting. It was shocking that this was actually taking place. However, if part of the set up of our FYSEM is to take in political information objectively first and then create an opinion I would like to hear the reaction about the situation from the government officials themselves. In addition, a statement from the newly appointed Police Chief as well. While this may never be possible, it would give viewers of the video both sides of the story. Being educated about both sides then allows the audience to make a clear opinion. I can definitely see the controversy between it being an issue for either the state or the national government to resolve. Personally, I believe it is an issue for the state to handle, even though this is a topic with much grey area.I do think this article having a video attached creates a bigger impact because this way provides a clear role in what is happening. Viewers can see it plain as day what is happening so there is no confusion and/or missing details. I wondered onto the 'about' link of the website and investigated. It seems that while there is the central focus on politics and a large viewing base I would say that there is bias. I believe from the various comments/articles/ and the congressmen and congresswomen praised in the 'about' link, I would say this website is in high support of the Democratic Party. While the video is shocking, it is hard to put aside the fact that it is biased. To me, there isn't a shocking story anymore when I discovered the bias. It just seemed as if they uploaded the video in support of a party instead of it being breaking news.
Personally i think that because of what happened previously in Wisconsin this video takes on a whole new meaning. Considering that gov. Scott Walker is such a polarizing figure in national and state politics this law has potential partisan implications. After all of the strong anti-Walker rallies that have gone on in the last 2 years it would make sense that he would consider passing a anti-rally/sign law. The first amendment is two vital to just ignore this problem. I don't think the attorney general should get involved but it is a case that SCOTUS should consider.
Lydia, well said and I agree. I would love to hear the government officials' and Police Chief's defending argument to get a more clear picture of the story.
How do you think the state will handle the issue if they were the ones who created the law?
That's an interesting thought, "there isn't a shocking story anymore when I discovered the bias", and it opens up a new perspective, at least for me, when viewing videos, articles, etc.
I pretty much agree with everything Lydia just explained. I believe that it was very biased in that it didn't provide the other side of the situation. I believe that if there was a response to the elected official from the PIO as to what their point of view was, and then that point of view was demonstrated in the video/article that there would be more of a less biased opinion about this situation. The video adds a lot of support to this side of of the situation, in that the audience can actually see what is happening and make their own decisions (even though the video is biased as well), rather than only an article. Being an obvious bias video has devalued its shock factor in my opinion.
Great discussion. I would prefer to use the word "partisan" or "activist" rather than "biased" to describe the website that posted the video. They are out there advocating for a cause. That's OK. A news organization like the Star Tribune has a different mission. They are there to present a more balanced and neutral view of events and issues. I think there's room for everything.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home