I worked as a poll-watcher today for a class in the Political Science department, which literally meant that I sat in the back of the lobby at the Poughkeepsie YMCA and watched people sign in, enter the poll booth, and leave. It was fairly uneventful but quite illuminating. We had opportunities between votes to ask the election officials questions, so I asked if they are allowed to inform/remind people that some candidates still listed on the ballot had already dropped out of the race. An official replied that they were not allowed to do so, which in some cases could effectively result in a non-vote. To be guaranteed that one’s vote counts therefore means that a person must independently seek out information about candidates’ standing prior to arriving at the polls - and at this point in the game there are no protections against one’s effective disenfranchisement stemming from missing the latest news. The message here is that at some point the burden of having current information rests entirely with an individual.
This observation caused me to wonder about various alternative media producers' positions on how far they feel they must go to reach out to audiences in order to convey vital information– where in the process of making and using alternative media do creators and viewers meet? In learning about different examples of alternative media it seems that this is useful to pay attention to – specifically, how a group’s philosophy regarding their obligation to spread important information (and an audience’s obligation to seek it out) is manifest in their choice of media and their strategies for distribution.
Polina
No comments:
Post a Comment