Hope you enjoy checking out my sandbox!
Clayoquot First Edit
editThe media’s portrayal of the logging protests and blockades received worldwide mass media attention, creating a national support for environmental movements facing British Columbia and fostering a strong advocacy for anti-logging campaigns. Media attention was focused around the ‘unfairness’ of over 900 individuals getting arrested for joining in peaceful protests and blockades, to which participants encountered aggression and intimidation which eventually helped strengthen public support for non-violent protests.
Clayoquot Body Paragraph
editMass media attention began by relaying highly controversial and at times violent coverage of the protest events, showcasing dramatic outcomes that would lead to higher viewing and readership rates. Reporters believed that this sort of coverage was at times necessary to gain attention to the cause (given the outcome of certain protests) and offered more appeal to a public that sought entertainment value in the media. Females were portrayed more often than men as being ‘radical activists’ and members of extremist groups. This lead to controversy surrounding the potential economic benefits to be made by news articles publishing sensational news, which were believed at times to have embellished the truth in order to collect monetary rewards.[1]
Over time, the media began to detract attention from radical activists towards reports on individuals who were indirectly involved in the protests. The opinions of ‘mild activists’ were covered more frequently over time due to their moderation. Considering the ongoing nature of the protests, a shift was made in the media in hopes of resolving the underlying issues surrounding Clayoquot Sound. News articles began to steer reports away from radical activists who, in the past, were the focus of dramatic and uniquely portrayed events. Reporters indicated that they chose to interview more moderate groups and mild activists because they were believed to offer more credible and sensible information. The drive to produce reliable information surpassed the media’s need to provide entertainment, which allowed the public to understand the seriousness behind the issue taking place.[2]
Media attention began to focus around the perceived unfairness of over 900 arrests after individuals joined in peaceful protests and blockades, violating a court injunction that forbid the occurrence of such events. News sources focused on activists as having encountered on-site aggression and intimidation, which eventually helped strengthen public support for non-violent actions. Eventually the mass media did not emphasize the significance of any few particular environmental leaders as central actors in the protection of Clayoquot Sound. Instead, protestors, environmental NGO’s and local First Nations were portrayed together as deeply committed to the effort of preserving Clayoquot Sound, becoming a group symbol for international environmental efforts and awareness. These lobby groups, advocating for the boycott of large-scale logging corporations, successfully urged the public to join in and support the cause as activists themselves.[3]
References
- ^ Malinicka, T., Tindallb, D.B., Dianic, M. "Network centrality and social movement media coverage: A two-mode network analytic approach." Department of Sociology and Department of Forest Resources Management: ScienceDirect. University of British Columbia (2011).
- ^ Malinicka, T., Tindallb, D.B., Dianic, M. "Network centrality and social movement media coverage: A two-mode network analytic approach." Department of Sociology and Department of Forest Resources Management: ScienceDirect. University of British Columbia (2011).
- ^ Walter, P. "Adult Learning in New Social Movements: Environmental Protest and the Struggle for the Clayoquot Sound Rainforest." Adult Education Quarterly 57.3 (2007): 248-63.
New Paragraph
editI've added in more writing... I won't post the entire article again but here is the new paragraph, as well as a revised paragraph :)
Mass media attention began by relaying highly controversial, and at times, violent coverage of the protest events, showcasing dramatic outcomes that would lead to higher viewing and readership rates. Reporters believed that this sort of coverage was necessary to bring attention to the cause (given the outcome of certain protests) and offered more appeal to a public that sought entertainment value in the media. Females were portrayed more often than males as being ‘radical activists’ and members of extremist groups, which encouraged the formation of social stigmas being attached to female protestors.
The media’s creation of stereotypes led to controversy surrounding the potential economic benefits for media outlets publishing sensational news, which was believed at times to have embellished the truth in order to collect monetary rewards.[36] Accusations began to surround the mass media’s use of language as being biased and one-sided when referring to relevant multi-stakeholder groups. Certain reporters would describe the protestors as “roadside rebels,” “guerrilla warriors,” “green guerrillas” and “angry callers” in opposition to “logging giants” such as International Forest Products Ltd. and MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. Depending on whose interest was in mind, media outlets could portray the activists or the industry as the group in the right or the group in the wrong. This was typically related to the personal beliefs of those who owned the means of production, depicting information that suited their own envisioned result of the controversy. There was often a push to depict activists as extremists in order to prevent boycotts against British Columbia wood products, which could become detrimental to the Province’s revenue.[1]
References
Team Feedback
editHi Alia! These first two sentences look good. I just have a few suggestions to improve clarity.
- In the first sentence, the use of the word 'media' twice seems a bit redundant. Maybe remove the first one?
- In my sources I have that it was around 800 protesters who were arrested, maybe we can check that in class.
- The word 'unfairness' in quotes may make it seem biased towards a certain opinion (I'm not sure how harsh other Wikipedians will be). Perhaps putting the word 'perceived' ahead of it and removing the single quotes would work, so it reads: "Media attention was focused around the perceived unfairness of over 900 individuals..."Through local, national, and international news coverage, the Clayoquot Sound blockade became recognized as the sole most powerful demonstration of civil disobedience in Canadian history.--Mmann7 (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips! The Wiki page itself is edited--Aliarayan (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Alia, I looked at your section on the Clayoquot page. It looks good, I just fixed some minor formatting things (the capitalization of the title and the references section). Your second paragraph was especially clear and well written! Regarding your sandbox though - your previous draft and our comments aren't appearing anymore. I think we are supposed to keep everything visible so we can be evaluated. --Mmann7 (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey there! So, at first i was a little confused with your first paragraph, i thought it steered too far from the protest, but I think you brought it back around in the second paragraph. I also like how it will segway in the next topic of trails and arrests. nice job! --FrankRBIV (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi Alia, everything looks great, and good call on adding the new paragraphs. The only thing you might want to develop further (if you can and have the info on it) is the section on how media changed their focus from extremists to understanding the issue, because it seems vague. Again, not a huge deal, but I think it would add great value to the section and to anyone reading it! --Fziza (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Good work Alia, I like the section you added!--Ashleypiv (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)