At a time in society where media platforms (and our choice of settings) have the ability to censor and filter the information that individuals receive, I felt myself growing curious as to what the media would have been like in the late 60s and early 70s. Watching the video clip of Huey Newton in class, I noticed that, although he said otherwise, he was an entertainer. And, I assume, in those days you had to be entertaining in order to fit the TV culture at the time, and to get people’s attention. Today, with platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, an individual with a voice can record himself or herself proclaiming his or her message about anything — freedoms, politics, religions, or ideologies. That is both the beauty and the downfall of technological innovations: how can we digest all of this material and decide if we agree with, disagree with, resonate with, or abhor any and every sentence?
Would people have resonated with Huey Newton as a leader of a movement today? Would his messages be censored by Facebook or Twitter? I would argue that Huey Newton and his method of speech — the fast-talking, repetitive, sarcastic and ironic speech calling out the leaders of today and the issues that are prevalent in the country would get people to watch, listen, and try to understand. If that truly is the case, would the media publish the ten-point program and showcase Huey as a hero of 2020?
This same exact thing popped into my head when watching the Huey Newton video. The actor portraying Huey was super charismatic, interacting with the crowd, and putting on a true performance that I think would’ve resonated with a lot of people. If Huey was like this in real life, I think he would’ve reached many Instagram feeds. I think media overall is a great advantage that our generation has over the younger generation in the 1960s, however I also think that it has some serious drawbacks. For example, people use media today to exaggerate the divide between different points of view. Opponents of Huey’s could’ve easily taken a performance like that and spread it through media in a negative light. I’m not sure whether social media is beneficial for activism or not, but I am sure that it has changed the game and will continue to in the coming decades.
I think you make a great point regarding the role of technology of the 60s as compared to that of today. I’d be curious to see if you could make a connection with the posters made by the Irish revolutionaries which we discussed earlier in the class. Do you think that the impact would have been similar or more different if the posters had been made in 2020? I think that technology makes it easier to express one’s viewpoint, which causes there to be more viewpoints in the pool, which can sometimes be a hindrance, as you already pointed out.
I think that it is incredibly astute to consider the differentiation between media in the 1960s/70s and the present day, as well as how we as a society consume this information. I was incredibly interested by your point about what was expected of an individual back in the 1960s and 70s in order to create an engaging piece of material that brought to light issues that were affecting society such as the performance by Huey Newton that you mentioned. I think that people most certainly would resonate with Huey Newton’s message today and I believe that it would not only be easier for him to disseminate his message but create an even larger following.
Given the corporate media’s left-leaning bias today Huey Newton would be a superstar. His following would dwarf Hollywood celebrities, political officials, and famous athletes. The media would treat him as a darling, blasting him across conventional airwaves and ensuring that anything problematic would be prevented from surfacing – much like the media’s treatment of the Biden laptop at this time.
However, in his era, it is easily shown that the media did not have an overwhelmingly favorable view of Mr. Newton, despite his charm and charisma. Regardless, this is an interesting idea and certainly worth talking about.