What is a protest?...The Sequel

In my first blog of the semester, I came in with a definition of protest that seemed pretty simple. Looking back on it now, I can tell how much I didn't know then compared to what I know now. The basic idea of what a protest meant to me then is still pretty much the same now: a person who protests has to have a belief that goes against whatever they want to protest. They take action that will hopefully lead to change. Whatever that action is, it varies among different people.
I still believe this to be true, but with all of the things we've talked about and looked at in class, there is much more that I would add to the idea of "protest". Before I took the course, whenever I thought of "protest" I thought of picketing, boycotting, slogans, and speeches. The word protest made me see anger, resistance and people chanting and marching. Those were the thoughts that ran through my head. It was all I had seen on t.v. shows and in movies. When people protest, they do all of these "civil rights era" type things. However, over the course of the semester, it was cool to see so many different examples of protests that never crossed my mind before. It broadened my view of what constitutes as a protest.
Examples like art, movies, and music can all be used as forms of protest. My original idea was correct, but I just did not apply it to all of these different outlets. You can express a belief and challenge something in a song. You can paint a picture on a wall and make a statement that speaks louder than words. Shephard Fairey's work dealing with war really proved this to me. The movie about the Yes Men came off as a protest to me, but in such a unique way. It introduced me to satirical and documentary-based forms of protest. All of these various forms are things that I see everyday and, until now, it never clicked how much entertainment and art can create serious action.
Another thing I would add to my original blog would be the importance of who the protester is. Credibility is crucial and influence works best when that person is well-respected or highly regarded by people. It's not always the size of your protest, but rather, the quality of the individuals involved. 100 people could do a lousy protest boycotting the use of computers in universities, while a single music artist can release an anti-war song that impacts millions.
Nonetheless, I know that I will look at things differently now...and I guess I can blame rhetoric for that.

Music to my ears

The protest song that I decided to choose was "Mosh" by Eminem. I always thought it was pretty interesting because not too many rappers come out with songs that have such a strong message regarding the war, voting, and the presidency. It was released in 2004 right before the presidential election between John Kerry and George Bush. The song, and its accompanying video are extremely anti-Bush, anti-war, and pro-voting. The video has probably become more popular than the song itself, and its one of the main reasons I chose it. The animations are unique and, among the many depictions, shows Eminem gathering together several young people in order to go and vote (for Kerry). The lyrics of the song are pretty clear....Eminem hates Bush. He calls him a monster, claims he started the war selfishly for oil, and suggests that Bush suit up and go fight himself. Eminem stated that his main goal was to inspire young people to go out and vote because they could really be a force if united together. I don't particularly like profanity in songs, but it was surprising that there was hardly any in this one, considering Eminem is known for his language. He is still able to convey emotion and get his message through.
Overall, I feel that protest songs can be great because they make a particular statement while still providing music to enjoy. Effectiveness really depends on what the issue is and how important that issue is to people. If it is about a topic most people consider unimportant, there won't be much progress with it. Popularity rules the music industry, so relevancy is important. Songs regarding the upcoming election, or the current Iraq War would be considered relevant today. Also, the artists themselves might be a big factor in effectiveness. If they have a bad reputation with people or are relatively unknown, the song might not make much noise, so to speak.

Moore or less Coulter

Both Michael Moore and Ann Coulter have unique ways of getting their message across to the public. Their views and opinions may not always be agreed with but most people have a good idea of where they stand. Ann Coulter is very outspoken and uses television interviews and her books as a way to express herself. Her methods are controversial, as mentioned in the previous blog, but no one can deny her effect on the people. As far as being a protester, I would say that she is. She always speaks about the problems of the liberals and the 'liberal way' of thinking. Her style of arguing involves attacking the so called liberal party and then presenting her own ideas as the right way. This strategy makes it clear what she is protesting and what biases she has in terms of politics.
In a similar fashion, Michael Moore has a way of painting bad pictures of whatever/whoever he may be speaking out against. Coulter does this with her sharp words, while Moore uses film. The biggest example to me is George Bush. Fahrenheit 9/11 demonstrated how Moore feels about Bush, from the very beginning of the movie to the very end. He even sets the tone for the film by opening with the presidential election from 2000, claiming Bush's entire presidency was tainted from the start. This is just one of the many ways Moore tries to instill into our minds how 'horrible' the Bush administration is. He is crafty when putting certain scenes together, whether they were taken out of context or not. It doesn't matter to him because the ultimate goal is to convince us of what he's trying to convey.
I believe the popularity of these two figures comes from the fact that they stir up controversy. The things they say or do in interviews, films, and books are always thought provoking. Whether you support them or not, they spark something in the mind that causes interest. It's like a car wreck on the side of the road. It may make you sad, it may make you excited, or may make you frustrated. Either way, it makes you feel something and it keeps your interest enough to keep looking. Michael Moore's films present a lot of well researched information in a creative style. It makes me wonder what he is going to uncover next. Ann Coulter's ways are hated by many, yet t.v. stations continue to use her and the public continues to watch. I saw so many negative comments on her youtube videos and it made me think two things: 1.) A lot of people don't like her and 2.) Those same people are still viewing.

Coulter Coulter

While I was watching the Ann Coulter video clips, I found myself getting a little annoyed by her. My first impression of her when she began speaking was arrogance and disrespect. I disagree with some of her opinions that were brought up in the interviews, but my main issue is how she argued her opinions. One of the main things I noticed was how seemed to avoid certain questions which really hurts her credibility to me. I wasn't persuaded at all (if that is what she was trying to do). I've always thought that when a person avoids a question or immediately changes topics in discussions like those, it just shows how full of bologna that person is. If you are not lying, or have nothing to hide, why not give a straightforward answer? Another thing that bothered me was how she would cut off people when they were trying to make a point. She has so much to say, but can't seem to listen to or respect other people's opinions. In the MSNBC phone interview, she just goes off on Joe Scarborough without letting him get a word in.
In the conversation with Elizabeth Edwards, she justifies her rudeness and personal attacks on people (like Hillary) by continually bringing up something about bankrupting doctors and juries. What does that have to do with how you treat people? Her attempts at being funny in her interviews are childish and far from clever. One example is in the debate with Al Franken when she made a joke about how you could use paint chips for the skin color of Muslims. Maybe I misunderstood what she was saying, but something about that just didn't seem right to me.
Overall, her annoyingly sarcastic tone, poorly constructed arguments, and attention hogging really turn me off as a spectator. I do respect her political views, but there are better ways to go about presenting them. If selling her books is all she cares about then, according to her claims, she has succeeded.