Media

Professor Worley came into to talk to our class. She just opened an entire new can of worms when it comes to figuring out what is and isn't violence. The new technology make it hard to see what is and isn't violent when it comes to the internet. Is hacking considered violent or redirecting website URLS.

Then there are the virtual worlds online , which I just find odd. Making an avatar and then just playing it. Your creating an alternate world for yourself. It just seems odd and then there was a report about some ones avatar being raped. It that violent though. It not a "real" person. Someone is controlling that person. I just don't think that something like that is violent, I just believe it wrong. First that someone would program a video game to do that and second that a person would feel the need to rape in a video came. I think that it portraying media violence.

Then there are sites that allow for people to make picketers and place them anywhere in the country. I don't consider that taking action. To be apart of movement you have to take action get involved. Just sitting in front of the t.v or computer does allow for that. I think that creating an online picketer is like supporting a cause on facebook. Your just let people know that you think it is an important issue.

However I do think that internet is good for getting the message out. It allows for mass emails to be sent out. You can promote your cause online. I think it allows for communication if anything.

Indivdual cases: India

The interesting point with this caseis that it started as a grassroots movement however larger NGO and companies eventually step in. I think that it is really important to look at can other people step in and take the leadership role.

It is interesting to read why other people stepped in. To my knowledge it seemed like the people who were involved good devote the time needed to the movement. They were unable to find the time or energy to put into this cause.

It was good that the NGO and other advocacy groups were able to step in a be the voices for the victims. I feel like we have to question thought are they doing it for the right reason. Do these groups have the best interest of the people or his there some kind of hidden agenda.

While they can advocate for the victims is it really what is best because they are not suffering like the victim is. It creates the dynamic of an outsider coming in. Will it be helpful for the group or just damage the cause more.

While the movement had some successful parts it did not resolve all the conflict. I thought it was interesting at the end of the article when it said " In India a real effective movement only takes off when a traditional community identity is involved"

I think that is interesting point about identity. It shows how important group identity is to a movement and how it is needed. Not only do you need a group but they need to have sense they are the same people and have group idenity to mobilize and organize.

That while this movement had outside support it still had a group think aspect to it. They is why parts of it were successful.