What do civil rights in the 1960s, the Vietnam War, and the current Israeli-Hamas conflict have in common? They are controversial. Why do we see so few uncontroversial demonstrations?
Back in the 50s and 60s, when anti-segregationism and Black civil rights movements began to gain momentum, the sheer majority of the opposition was rooted in racism and phobias.
At the same time, resistance centered around basic skepticism, albeit often prejudiced. We see the same in the women's suffrage movement where, according to The National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage (founded in 1911), women's suffrage "means competition of women with men instead of co-operation... Because in some States more voting women than voting men will place the government under petticoat rule." Other arguments, such as, "Why waste time, energy, and money, without result?" Are commonplace in the opposition to almost any kind of movement towards new policy.
That is not to say that there is never legitimate doubt, but we can see that you almost always need to dive deeper.
As we all should know, the media tends to magnify certain aspects of stories and provide too little context for the average audience member. For example, a common misconception of school shootings in America is that they are relatively common, despite their schools making up an incredibly small percentage of institutions nationwide. What citizens need to understand is that they are relatively enormous when compared to past years and other nations.
This is merely one example of an issue where media outlets can warp realities and fuel controversy, which in turn fuel controversial protests where herd mentality can kick in for the worse.
No matter what, the same advice for media literacy holds true: read from every side, use credible sources, and fact check everything. Be skeptical, but look at all consequences and decide what's most just. Don't ever support what you don't understand.
Image Credits: Encyclopedia Britannica, Getty Images, New York Times
コメント