Radical documents (because you asked)
Our Media Lab this week discussed the producers and products of media from the many 'actors' in the "War on Terror." The idea that there are videos that one doesn't see on cable news-- videos produced by partisans-- has been nagging at me for a long time. What seems most significant is that everyone is broadcasting an opinion that can be tracked down and compared with opposing sources with relative ease.
[If you'd like the links to a few videos I think are interesting, click through to the extended version of this post.]
I ran across this one, produced by the Kahanist group, Jewish Task Force, on Facebook tonight. It discusses the "true nature" of Islam and warns of the grave threat it poses to the West.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzQFyhFNUtE
[I'll leave that without a link because I'd rather not track muddy footprints here. Linking these videos might win us undesired attention.]
John Santos pointed out that these videos can often be identified with genres. "The REAL Islam Revealed" fits in the category of the apocalyptic montage, condemning enemies as broadly and vehemently as possible. The following two videos come from either side of another genre: warrior films. The first is pretty rough and is intended to show Taliban fighters shooting down an American jet. You'll note that the comments on the page question whether the video is legitimate.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EO_8XPf5Klg
For good measure, here is a video from the perspective of U.S. troops, apparently taken during the siege of Fallujah.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5gD2sbZuEA0&mode=related&search=
For better or worse, this course has made my interest in the (often hate-filled) documentaries/slideshows/articles of radical groups feel more acceptable. I don't usually seek out these things, and I certainly don't go looking for depictions of gore and death. But I have gone fishing on youtube, which can take one on adventures through the "Related" video lists on each page. I hope my posting these videos hasn't offended anyone.
Comments
Henry, checked out the links you posted and I'm not sure I understand what your point is. To say that radical documentaries are acceptable means what, excactly? Perhaps everybody should have their say and be free to express it in anyway possible, but does that mean we should give the same value to some radical film lacking in specific evidence as we do a film like Gibney's, which is replete with actual historical evidence and academic interviews? As far as polarizing people, the films that you have posted are very valuable. But they do little to promote productive discussion.
Posted by: Daliso Leslie | February 20, 2007 06:46 PM
Daliso, I don't think I was saying that they are acceptable or not acceptable in any ethical or factual way. They exist, and the fact that they exist-- and that they are being produced simultaneously around the world and shared relatively openly while at the same time not being produced by what we consider to be conventional media (film, tv, newspapers)-- is noteworthy.
I definitely wasn't rejoicing that these people are free to make videos, nor was I making any claim about the value of the "actual historical evidence" they contain. It is pretty clear, given everything that we as media consumers are bombarded with-- whether it is FOX News, CNN, anti-US youtube clips, cockpit/humvee footage, or anything else-- that we need to cultivate a way of seeing these things that empowers us to question them and weigh them not only for what they are trying to say, but also for the way they are trying to say it.
So if I were compelled to make any comment about how these videos contribute to a discussion, I would say that we should analyze their social impact rather than try to weigh their value. And I'm not confident that we'd arrive at solid answers to any big questions about editorial inteniton, audience perception, or rhetorical strength.
You write favorably about Gibney's film, and I agree with your comments very strongly. I was moved by what I saw, and I felt like he based the story on a firm foundation of honesty and research. And without calling his film into question, I'd like to point out that it is an ephemeral line between validity and invalidity because the viewer's evaluation is so subjective. The 9/11 conspiracy theory films that I have seen, for example, try to do a lot of the same things (drawing on expert sources, leaked documents, etc.). And I suspect that there are people for whom those films are just as persuasive as I (and maybe we) found Gibney's to be. Likewise with the videos I posted.
That is an issue that has been discussed in similar settings for a long time, but it strikes me that we are approaching it in a somewhat novel and open way.
Finally, I think that productive discussion probably follows from a full accounting of opinions/documents, whether they are based in hate, misinformation, or anything else. To villify such perspectives in an academic setting would undermine our goal.
Posted by: Henry Shepherd | February 20, 2007 07:37 PM