It is currently 2:51 am, and I devoted the entirety of tonight to following the incidents occurring in Baltimore, particularly with an emphasis with Twitter. Obviously, Ferguson was at the fore-front of my mind, and how each of these two separate events might somehow intersect. And it is just about to turn to 3am, so excuse if this is complete rambling, but I am very interested in how each of the “sides” to the Baltimore incident handled the reporting of the incident.
I am not experienced with Twitter, but the top post for “#BaltimoreRiots” states the following, “By my count so far, five journalists attacked in #BaltimoreRiots -some injuries-photos…” and then linked to an outside post which I will not attach. This, to me, isn’t surprising in the slightest. Being behind cameras at a heated event is, of course, dangerous. However, while watching a livestream of the event, on the street at around 1:16am, two events happened on camera roughly 30 minutes apart:
1.) The cameraman who was livestreaming was told to “Get outta here take a picture.”, and was hit with a glass bottle of alcohol by a Baltimore resident.
2.) Swat teams flashed strobelights at the cameraman’s equipment, in an attempt to disrupt the recording.
These two incidents, immediately following each other, are incredibly interesting to me, primarily in regards to our readings for class. In an example of both Frankenstein and Caleb Williams, we have documentation and reporting through narration. Each of these works seem to hold subjective reporting in extremely high regards, emphasizing the writing of journals in order to document history, regardless of subjectivity. However, objective documentation in the form of recording seems to be completely unwanted tonight by both sides of the conflict. And yet each side takes so readily to Twitter to document their feelings.
I would argue, therefore, that Frankenstein and Caleb Williams offer very unique insights into tonight’s conflict – in both of these stories, the reporting is purely subjective. Likewise, Twitter is also purely subjective. It seems that the “attacked” medium, livefootage, is unwanted as a purely objective form of documentation. I am therefore curious what use objectivity has in the complexities of the works we have read for class. Can we only arrive at the “truth” of these situations by delving into the subjective rather than the objective? Is there even such a thing as the objective in regards to both journal or footage keeping?
The livefootage was archived, and readily available upon request. However, the site is very aflame with spammers and racial remarks, so it is a very “Not Safe For Work” environment at the moment, so I will refrain from posting it anywhere on this site, just in case. Now, to sleep. If none of this made sense, expect edits in the morning!