Text Assignment 4
In reference to the SDS student antiwar movement of the 60’s, what Gitlin means by “the observer changed the position of the observed” is that the group’s message was being “reframed” by the media. Numerous reasons are cited as to why it happened. The underlying reason has to do with SDS’s structural organization.
One of the fundamental reasons why the framing of the message is difficult for certain movements like SDS to control is a result of the tendency or assumption by the media in the way that it treats the news. In the case of the SDS approach in the anti-war movement, the media at that time tended to “unthinkingly” treat defiance “as a sort of crime.” They were portrayed as extremist and that “the New Left was dangerous to the publics good.” Gitlin also comments that news was treated such that “news concerns the event, not the underlying condition; the person, not the group; conflict, not consensus; the fact that advances the story, not the one that explains it.” Considering the bias of the news media coupled with how the news was treated, it is understandable how the framing of the message can be easily manipulated by the “observed” (the news media in this case). A fair question that can be asked is, why did SDS allow their message to be framed in a different light? The answer has to do with their structure, how they were organized. Basically, they were not in a position to prevent or control it.
It is mentioned that the SDS structure was built to support a “tiny organization, a network of so called Old Guard elite clusters living in intense political and personal community.” The structure was further weakened by the media’s role in the recruitment of activists. SDS as an organization was not able to absorb this change. These recruits were known as the Prairie Power people. They were more radical minded than the founding SDS leaders, they wore longer hair, used obscene language, and smoked dope. The media did not only help produce this change of guard situation, but then turned around and played it up. “In its beginning as a mass organization was its end.”
Another problem, again pointing to structural issues, had to do with leadership accountability. An underlying problem was that the group did not have it all together in terms of the clarity of their message. One outcome of this situation was that some leaders were reluctant to lead. They had to contend with the picture being painted by the media and the challenge of getting the fragmented co-leaders and members to go along. Many of their most able leaders ended up leaving. Additionally, they did not have built in control or checks and balances to prevent leaders from speaking out of turn or for keeping them from migrating to celebrity status. When this occurred an individual leader was conveying the message that he wanted as opposed to the message that the overall group was trying to frame. These internal structural issues led to making them very vulnerable to the media.
The problems mentioned above are along the line that SDS was not built for success. This weakness in structure made it difficult for them to contend with many challenges that came their way. SDS’s position was complicated by the actions of other groups operating outside their domain. There were numerous small groups that grabbed a lot of attention, such as burning of draft cards and those that associated themselves with communist themes. SDS had problems separating themselves from the activities of such groups. Another problem was that they were not in a position to withstand the attacks by the right wing. As a result of all of these issues, the outcome of it all was that their goals ended up beyond what they could achieve.
In my opinion, the movement that was most affected, in a positive way, by the presence of media coverage was the Civil Rights movement. In contrast to the SDS situation, the mainstream aspects of the Civil Rights movement was rooted in strong leadership, a clear message, and given their approach of passive resistance, they could not be characterized as radical. While there were radical groups at play, what I am referring to here is the main part of the movement led by Dr. Martin Luther King.
The more media attention the Civil Rights movement got the more sympathetic, not only people in this country but around the world, became to their cause. The display of the cruel treatment of the peaceful protesters, by the police and others in positions of authority, was difficult to ignore. The steady and consistent message delivered by Dr. King was loud and clear. Dr King attracted constant media attention which he used very effectively to keep the movement progressing at a rapid pace. He was not interested in waiting any longer for the rights that they were being denied. In this country trumpeting their democratic beliefs it became more and more difficult to deny blacks, and all citizens of the country for that matter, the rights guaranteed for all. It seems to me that the media coverage of the Civil Rights movement accelerated their cause.
In conclusion, it is important for a group or movement to have a single voice. This is not necessarily making reference to a single person, but rather to a strong and clear message. It was mentioned by Gitlin that the Women’s movement has learned from the experiences of the New Left and has worked to decentralized leadership and “spokespersonship”. Bottom line, as an organization, be it small or large, you need to be structured in line with being able to achieve the desired goals, and to a very significant extent this means that you need to know how to deal effectively with the media.
