Language and Politics: Jezebel and The Kony Controversy

As an activist, you know you've made the big time when your material is covered on the front page of the New York Times.  And that was right where Invisible Children's latest viral video has gotten them.  For non-profits like Invisible Children, or the Institute for Global Labour and Human Rights where I work, being on the front page of the New York Times is a dream.  Invisible Children already had a few million followers on Facebook, but the New York Times circulation just added another million people who were virtually incapable of missing the news.  In this age where everyone and his mother has started a non-profit, gaining this type of coverage allows an organization to transcend the cacophony of non-profits competing for scarce funding in a Darwinian world where only the fittest at adapting to contemporary media survive.

You'll notice that I didn't mention in that first paragraph that the press was relatively unflattering in its attitude towards the video put out by Invisible Children.  Why?  Because it doesn't matter.  There was coverage from virtually every major news outlet.  The WSJ here and here, The Atlantic here and here... and here and here, the Washington Post here, here, and some more places - well, you're getting the point.  It's been huge.  Having had a number of discussions about western aid campaigns in the developing world, I felt rather like I didn't much need to wade into this shitstorm (named best import from English in German last year).  But then I saw this, excerpted from the Jezebel coverage of Kony, "Fine, I thought, clicking on the video and wondering why the people who usually bombarded me with cat memes and status updates about getting high and eating McDonalds were suddenly fervent supporters of Ugandan children."

I'm not going to dispute the criticisms of the Kony campaign.  They are many, and some of the pages I've linked to in this article do an excellent job offering a very reasonable discussion of the campaign's shortcomings.    After laying into the feminist movement in my blog post from yesterday about its unfortunate exclusion of men I really didn't want to lambaste it again today, but this Jezebel article just got under my skin too much to be ignored.  I'll remind everyone that I'm an ardent feminist - though not as radical as many of my self-identified feminist friends, and that fortunately, very fortunately, Jezebel doesn't speak for the whole movement.  

My point yesterday was that the left so consistently fails at coalition building.  Too many opportunities to bring people into the fold are wasted by those who feel it's not worth their time to explain the complexities of a leftist point of view to those who have a proclivity to share their point of view but don't yet understand its nuances.  And this is exactly what the writers/editors at Jezebel have gone and done with respect to the Kony campaign.  Again, yes, there are problems.  Foreign Policy pointed them out reasonably in a way that most people wouldn't feel personally attacked by reading.  I don't get high, go to McDonald's, or post cat memes on Facebook, and I felt personally attacked.  Jezebel's stance: "If you don't find it ridiculous that people think posting a video on Facebook is doing something activist-y, then you're an idiot!"

What is the point in attacking people for ignorance?  Yes, people need to understand that posting the video isn't saving the world.  They need to understand that there are organizations far more worthy of their $10 contribution than Invisible Children.  They need to comprehend that Invisible Children works with the Ugandan military, which itself has a somewhat equivocal history when it comes to protecting Ugandan citizens.  But screaming at people who don't understand these things that they're stupid faux-activists isn't going to convince them that you're a reasonable person who supports causes in a more efficient manner.  Instead, you wind up looking mildly insane and completely antagonistic towards anyone who's "not smart enough" to see the world the way you do.  

There's an obvious counterargument that I'm sure someone reading this article will consider - that Jezebel isn't designed as a coalition-building site for feminists.  Rather, it is a cathartic forum for hard-core feminists who (rightly) feel marginalized by the world around them and want a safe place to vent their fury.  Such a place should exist, and the online world presents an excellent forum for people who don't have easy access to feminist circles.  Nevertheless, if that place is going to exist, it shouldn't exist as (arguably) the most visible feminist news source on the internet.  As (again, arguably) the most public face of the feminist movement, Jezebel must strive to be more palatable to those not yet acquainted with its perspective.  

I'll try and make my next post on language and politics not be about the feminist movement.  It has just so happened that two incidents in the last two days prompted me to write about its failure to broaden its base of support - a mean I think essential to its ability to achieve its goals.  If any of my readers have suggestions for topics related to language and politics, please let me know.