As we have learned, attention quickly goes away from the purpose of a movement when violence comes into the picture, which is likely because it is “a bigger story.” Like many other situations that have violent and nonviolent sides, it is a more “interesting” news story to cover a violent situation than it is to cover a non-violent story. Which is awful, but our media is looking to cover things which will get more views and start more conversations among us.
In order for there to be a peaceful future in Israel and Palestine, nonviolent practices should be implemented such as boycotts, marches, sit-ins, etc.
I completely agree with your statement that violent action is reported on more quickly than non-violent because the media knows that will attract more attention in, as you said, "a bigger story". I think it's important to recognize that the Israeli regime is so strong that the only way the Palestinians can be heard is to use violent actions in many circumstances, however I don't think that western news outlets necessarily care about the conflict itself but rather what aspects of the conflict will garner more attention.
ReplyDeleteIt's definitely true that attention goes away from the purpose of a movement when violence comes into the picture. What I think is interesting about this is that violence often takes away from the credibility of the movement. For example, in class I believe Professor said something along the lines of if a politician came to AU and was booed away (the equivalent of violence for our purposes), people would focus on the fact that students booed him or her away instead of the politics. This is similar to how people focus on violence if it occurs in a movement life you said.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. When violence comes into play, it definitely does take away from the purpose of the cause and points it to the effects that the violence had on the cause. If the Palestinians use more non violent ways as a solution to the conflict it will be much more effective.
ReplyDelete