July 19, 2022 • 36 mins
In this episode I’ll be talking with bestselling author Todd Brewster who together with co-writer Marc Lamont Hill have written Seen and Unseen – Technology, Social Media and the Fight for Racial Justice.
This powerful book is a riveting exploration of the ways in which visual media has shaped the nations narrative on race and has fundamentally altered the centuries long battle for racial justice.
We’ll open our conversation as Todd outlines his career as a journalist for Time/Life Magazine, a senior producer for ABC News and his fellowship at Yale Law school. He’ll then explain the events that brought him and Marc together to collaborate on their book.
Next, we’ll discuss the roll technologies, such as still photography and moving pictures have played in shaping our views and opinions, and why he believes the ubiquity of cell phone cameras has now democratized our ability to document history and drive social change.
Later, we’ll dig into four recent high-profile events ranging from the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis to the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville, South Carolina that have changed the way we understand race relations in America.
And we’ll end our conversation by unpacking the limitations technology and social media have in sorting and prioritizing stories of significant social value from those that don’t.
The Show Notes
Seen and Unseen
https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Seen-and-Unseen
Todd Brewster
https://www.toddbrewster.com/
Marc Lamont Hill
https://www.marclamonthill.com/
Union Home Plus helps union members save money when they buy, sell, or finance their home.
Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Joe Cadwell (00:08):
Welcome to the Grit Nation Podcast. I'm Joe Cadwell,
writer, producer and host of theshow and on today's episode I'll
be talking with Best SellingAuthor Todd Brewster who
together with co-writer MarkLamont Hill have written Seen
and Unseen - Technology, SocialMedia and the Fight for Social
Justice. This powerful book is ariveting exploration of the ways
in which visual media haveshaped the nation's narrative on
(00:30):
race. As fundamentally allthrough the centuries long
battle for racial justice willopen our conversation as Todd
outlines his career as ajournalist for Time Life
magazine, a senior producer forABC News and his fellowship at
Yale Law School. Well, thatexplained the events that
brought him and Mark together tocollaborate on their book. Next,
we'll discuss the roletechnologies such as still
(00:52):
photography and moving picturesof blade and shaping our views
and opinions. And why hebelieves ubiquity of cell phone
cameras has now democratized ourability to document history and
drive social change. Later,we'll dig into four recent high
profile events ranging from themurder of George Floyd in
Minneapolis to the unite theright rally in Charlottesville,
South Carolina, that havechanged the way we understand
(01:14):
race relations in America.
Wonder conversation by unpackingthe limitations technology and
social media have and sortingand prioritizing stories of
significant social value, andthose that don't. After the
episode, be sure to check outthe show notes for more
information about Todd Brewsterand his recent work seen and
unseen. And now on to the show.
(01:44):
Todd Brewster Welco me to gritnation.
Todd Brewster (01:46):
Yeah, thank you it's my pleasure to be here.
Thank you Todd, for taking yourtime to be on my show. Today.
I'm really excited to talk withyou. You have recently written a
book with Mark Lamont Hillcalled Seen and Unseen
Technology, Social Media and theFight for Racial Justice. And
before we get into your book,Todd, I was hoping you could
(02:06):
tell us the listener audience alittle bit more about who you
are and what got you to writethis book?
Yeah, sure. I am a longtimejournalist. I'm originally from
New Jersey, I then throughConnecticut, and out to Indiana.
I've spent my formative years inIndiana, I grew up there, went
to Indiana University, became ajournalist, almost right out of
(02:26):
college, and I worked for timelife for a number of years, then
moved over to ABC News, where Iwas a senior producer, working
very closely with PeterJennings, I think some of your
audience remember Peter? Oh,sure. We we wrote two books
together and did a bit largedocumentary series. I went from
there to Yale Law School where Iwas a fellow in journalism and
(02:47):
then to a West Point where I wasI ran an oral history center,
doing a long video interviewswith both soldiers and officers
and, and policymakers. Fromthere too. Right write a book on
called called makers gamble,which I'm very proud of as well,
which is about making thedecision to emancipate the
(03:08):
slaves. And this this, themonths leading up to that, the
sign of the EmancipationProclamation, and from there,
went to Mount Holyoke Collegewhere I taught for about five
years journalism there. And I,what prompted me to do this book
was that Mark and I have beenfriends for a while, he did a
book called nobody and I wrotethe foreword for that book. And
we worked closely with him onthe ideas in that book, and it
(03:32):
helped them shape it. We havebeen in conversation as friends
since then. And when all thisnews happened in 2020, when we
became bombarded by these videosof, of racial violence, really
that that were built up to 2020.
When you think of TrayvonMartin, you think of Michael
Brown, you think of Eric Garner,but it was George Floyd's
(03:55):
killing two years ago thatreally rocked the nation and the
world and our being journalismprofessors. Both of us were very
curious about the role of thecell phone video, the role of
video and social media andtechnology in the raising of the
bar and a sense for racialreckoning in this country. So we
(04:18):
talked about it endlessly andended up with a with a mark is a
professor I should say I had atTemple University, trained
anthropologist as well as ajournalism professor there. And
we, we found that we wanted togo into some depth on the role
of technology as sort of theconduit through which the
(04:40):
stories are told and how thatshapes our understanding of
them. And so we drafted out abook idea that took a lot of got
a lot of attention. And thenhere we are,
Joe Cadwell (04:50):
And here we are in and having read your book, it
looks like you've taken for sortof modern day situations and use
that as a platform in which Togive a historical analysis of
the use of media throughouthistory to sort of create a
narrative,
Todd Brewster (05:05):
exactly so, the four episodes are certainly the
killing of George Floyd. Theviolence in Kenosha that was
notable for the arrival of a 17year old among those who
were Kyle Rittenhouse.
Kyle Rittenhouse exactly who waspart of this sort of militia
group that rendered into thecity in order to protect private
(05:25):
property and lead to aconfrontation that where he
killed two people and injured athird. The third one is the
killing of ahmaud arbery, ajogger in Glynn County, Georgia.
And the fourth one is the neoNazi march on Charlottesville in
2017. That resulted in the deathof one woman who was a protester
(05:47):
there,right. And all of these have
again in common they werecaptured basically by civilians,
or just citizens will say thatcitizens on the street using
ubiquitous cell phone withcamera integration.
Yeah, I mean, the big story ofour own time, it seems, is the
democratization of technology orcommunications technologies.
(06:07):
And, you know, it would havebeen unthinkable that a
generation ago that a teenagegirl 17 years old walking down
the streets in Minneapolis andseeing a police confrontation
with a black man on the on theneck extinguishing is his last
breath could be caught on video,by the use of a single small
(06:32):
instrument that's hardly biggerthan a postcard. But that's what
happened in 2020. And it was thenature of that killing, I think,
in part and we can go into moredepth on this was the nature of
that killing as well as the thesort of disinterested nature of
the one who took it bydisinterest. I just mean that
she didn't have an axe to grindwith no agenda. She was wanting
(06:53):
to take care of her littlesister, I believe it was to cut
foods in order to get somesnacks. And suddenly, she is
best in the position where sheis writing history. That video,
of course, was shown the worldover. Even more importantly,
people who didn't see the videoknew about the video, and knew
about one aspect of thisconfrontation, which was the
(07:16):
brutal killing that happened onthe streets of Minneapolis,
which drove people to thestreets and contributed a sense
of outrage worldwide, thepowerless against the powerful.
Exactly. And I think you know,for for the historical
perspective, it seems like forso long, the people that were
able to sort of drive thenarrative were the ones with the
(07:38):
money, the ones with thetechnology, the filmmakers, the
the media, the mainstream media,the but nowadays, it seems like
everyone can have an active rolein in the democratization of
racial justice when it when ityou know, they have that
powerful instrument in theirhand, and they have the ability
to livestream or just veryquickly get it out where
(07:58):
everyone can see it.
Yeah, I mean, it's interesting.
So take your mind back to theearly part of the 20th century,
when the first major filmappears The Birth of a Nation
it's it's a very artful film, itwas a terrific use of the medium
funded by what we guess we callventure venture capitalist at
the time, who were trying outthis new medium called film,
(08:20):
right. And, and done by adirector named DW Griffith, who
turns out to be one of the greatinnovators in film history, but
who also was a Confederatesympathizer and a supporter of
white supremacy. And so the filmtells the story of two families,
and one of Northern family whena southern family who are torn
(08:41):
apart by the Civil War, and whoeventually find their way back
together, having both renouncedthe evils of the Negro race and
black people are portrayed inthat film as lazy, ignorant,
stupid, fraudulent, corrupt.
(09:01):
They are, are the period of thatthe history described of the of
the reconstruction is is cast asa mistake in American history, a
departure from the naturalprogression of the American
idea. And the story of the CivilWar is filled with the spirit of
what's sometimes called the mythof the lost cause. Where the
(09:22):
claim is that the South wouldhave had the superior moral
position in the war then onlylost because they were
outnumbered and out financed.
And the interesting thing aboutthat, that story told in the
film, The Birth of a Nation isto help give rise to a lot of
white supremacy that we knowfrom the early part of the 20th
century in the ads for thepremiere the film in the Atlanta
(09:45):
newspapers. The ads will appearnext to ads for the Ku Klux
Klan. And so the Ku Klux Klanhad a revival in part because of
the spirit around the Birth of aNation. So you say who has the
tools of Power? Well, the numberof black leaders at the time of
WB Dubois and Monroe Trotter,were enthusiastic about telling
(10:05):
a counter story, you know,getting a film that would
actually debunk what was beingsaid an inverse of the nation.
But they didn't have the funds.
They didn't have the capital,they didn't have the cultural
capital and financial capital.
And so that story was untold.
And the myth of the Lost Causegained steam through most of the
20th century, not only inpopular culture, but also in
(10:29):
academia, and certainly in theminds of those who felt through
the bitterness of theConfederate defeat.
And again, this is 1915, the useof this new medium film The the
motion picture, there was asilent film birth of the nation.
And this was no indie film. Imean, this was professionally
(10:50):
directed, produced, to someextent acted, and was actually
the first film I understand tobe shown in the White House. It
was shown to Woodrow Wilson in1915, a three hour movie at
that.
Yes, exactly. Wilson, expressedhis admiration for the film and
said, regrettably, the storythat tells is all too true, I'm
(11:11):
paraphrasing a little bit, butnot by too much. So you can see
that the cultural ascendancy atthat time was towards white
supremacy, and that the filmrepresented that Yeah.
So again, the folks who had themoney controlled sort of the
narrative and again, trying todo a historical remembrance of a
bygone era and change theoutcome of people's minds by
(11:33):
using that medium. Before that,you know, I understand that
Frederick Douglass was, was abig proponent of photography,
you know, before the motionpicture, we had photography, and
I was, I didn't understand thatdirect correlation until I read
your book.
There are two commandingtechnologies that emerged in the
19th century. I mean, we thinkof the 20th century is the era
(11:53):
of technology. But the 19thcentury had two very commanding
technologies, one of them is thetelegraph. And the other one is
the photograph. And those of youknow, your, your, the story of
Abraham Lincoln will be will nodyour heads that that the
telegraph was a compellingtechnology to our 16th president
(12:14):
who love to sit in the telegraphoffice, if you remember those
scenes from the from the movieLincoln, he's composed is
actually that the emancipationproclamation by sitting in the
telegraph office, FrederickDouglass, who was born a slave,
and made his way to the northand was one of the most
commanding or rhetorical forcesfor abolition. He, he loved the
(12:37):
photograph, you thoughtassassin, he thought it would
have reformative influence uponthe country. And one of the
things that he felt wasparticularly important was that
it could establish black peopleas human beings. Now remember,
he was born in slavery he wasthis was a time when there was a
lot of pseudo science thatclaimed that there was a racial
hierarchy that, that put blacksmore on the level of animals
(13:02):
than on human beings. So believeit or not, the photograph was a
way of showing that black peoplewere human and deserve the kind
of dignity that that they weredemanding. He wrote number of
autobiographies for the samepurpose. The photograph
represented his visualexpression of who he was, and
his texts represented the storyof who he was. And he was the
(13:27):
most photographed man in the19th century, more than making
himself and we think of as beingphotographed so many times by
Matthew Brady and MatthewBrady's associates. So when we
talk about the role oftechnology in the history of
race in America, we have toinclude stories going all the
way back to Frederick Douglassin the late 19th century.
From there, we move into themotion pictures from the motion
(13:48):
pictures, then we get intosomething that's more in the
hands of professional photojournalist.
Yeah, photojournalism becomesStorytellers for the civil
rights movement in the 1960s,the 1950s. We know about the
story of Little Rock, but thestory of the Montgomery Bus
Boycott about the story of theSelma march about the story of
the March on Washington, largelythrough these iconic photograph
(14:10):
that were produced by photojournalists. Many of those that
I just kicked off, I'm sure yourlisteners are thinking, Oh, yes,
I know that photograph becauseit's so famous. They help tell
the story of riots inBirmingham, Alabama, after the
killing and the bombing of thechurch there that killed those
those young girls and the firehoses used by bull Connor's
(14:33):
police force on the protesters.
Those pictures, interestingly,helped turn the tide towards the
civil rights movement, becausepeople had only had descriptions
of what was going on in some ofthese racist communities in the
South. Now they had photographsand the photographs were a a
major factor in in pushing thecountry towards the acceptance
(14:57):
of the Civil Rights Act. Youthink about that role there that
you think about the role thatthe that the videos of the past
few years, and particularlyGeorge Floyd video have had in
terms of commanding publicsympathy. And I think you see a
similarity. AndI think one of the downsides of
the professional photojournalist and the in the
(15:17):
mainstream media using thosetypes of photography, again,
going back to people thatpotentially could have an agenda
or self serving interest topromote certain images. Now,
that's sort of been taken away,again, given to everyone
everyone has the ability now torepresent both sides of a story,
whether it's flattering to oneside or the other. And, and
(15:38):
that's why I think, you know,having observed the George Floyd
video numerous times, not onlythe one that Daniella Fraser
took with her cell phone outsidethe cup foods, but the one that
the officer was wearing on hisbody cam and seeing both sides
of the the incident. And again,people going into this either
doing their job or without anagenda. And it really does spin
(16:00):
a different narrative. Andwithout that, technology, people
are now resorting back to a timebefore photographs before say
the advent of the the handhelddigital camera that was used to
capture the Rodney King episodeback in the early 90s. And now
we're relying on people'smemory. We're relying on
(16:20):
people's personal bias. We'rerelying on people's agenda, if
you will, but all that's beentaken away. And now you can see
these images for yourself andmake your own decision as to
what is actually going on. Isthere a downside to that?
Yeah. So that was about to go tothat if absolutely, just so you
(16:41):
know, one of the things that youreferenced that people might
have that have had a bias whowere doing the photojournalism
and it 60s, it was more likelythat it was a corporate media
bias that anything wasn't somuch a personal bias. I mean,
the way that the powerstructures of media
organizations work was that itwas you were sent on an
(17:01):
assignment essentially, to getwhat was there. But there had to
be an attitude of right awaythat there was newsworthiness to
what they were going to see.
When he's shift ahead, howevermany years to our own moment,
one of the one of the moreimpressive things that we're
seeing now is the places thatwere photo journalists, might
not never have been said before.
(17:25):
And this was part of the titleof our book seen and unseen,
that we're seeing in this livesof people who have been unseen
by cameras before this. Thatincludes not only the police
violence on people of color, asevidenced by the George Floyd
video, but also all manner ofdetail into the stories of black
lives or otherwise of othermarginalized people. And the
(17:46):
ability not only as you saidearlier to take to take a video,
but also to show it to post iton Facebook to be able to tweet
on on Twitter to be able tocompose short little vignettes
that you can post your hobbiesand have be seen. That's changed
the whole nature of our publicconversation.
Absolutely. And, and I can'tremember where I heard it, maybe
(18:09):
I read it in your book, maybeone of the many podcasts I
looked, listen to, honestly,Todd prepping for this. But one
of the downsides of just havingthis, this constant access to to
information, streaminginformation on our phones is
basically the size of the phonedoesn't really give any emphasis
to the magnitude of the story athand. One minute, you're seeing
(18:30):
the life literally squeezed outof George Floyd on a street in
Minneapolis, the next you'rewatching some, some college
kids, you know, do the latestdance craze. Next, you're
watching a cat video, the nextthing you know, and on and on it
goes and then you're back tosomething horrible and graphic
and that screen doesn't change.
And I think in a way it sort ofdumbs down our ability to
process and understand, youknow, the severity of what we're
(18:50):
seeing,right? Which is why in the end,
for all the benefits of havingcameras be able to record raw
truth on them. We need curatorsto help us understand the truth
that are being sewn to us. Andwe tend sometimes to just count
those as bias I would say don'tdiscount those as bias. judge
(19:11):
them for their attention to thedetail of the truth that they're
gathering and for the valuesthat they bring to those truths,
right what is it that they valueI mean, it's very interesting to
look at the video for instanceof, of Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17
year old who kills two peopleand injures a third after he
(19:32):
comes in as a member of themilitia group into Kenosha and
see that have a video of youseen by one pair of eyes and
he's recorded as a as a as theaggressor and have seen by
another pair of eyes who see himas a defender. So the video
doesn't carry a moral compassyou know the video doesn't have
(19:53):
its does it brand new to theheroes and the villains for us.
We have to still fit figure thatout ourselves. And you're right
to say this is very interestingpoint you make jokes about the,
the, the way that the video aswe see it as we recognize it
across social media inparticular, but on the internet
in general does not carry a kindof sorting mechanism that allows
(20:15):
us to know what's important,what's not important. You know,
when I teach journalism, one ofthe first things I do with my
classes, I bring in an oldfashioned broadsheet. And for
your listeners who don't knowwhat that is, that's the long
tall paper like the New YorkTimes folds out, right? It's not
a tabloid, which is which wasinvented in part two, for
readers on the subway so theycould easily open like a book
(20:36):
and read it and then stuffinginto their their briefcase or
whatever the broadsheet not onlyrank the news that you're seeing
in front of you, by virtue ofits position on the page, it
also allows the publishingcompany to determine which gets
the big headline which gets thesmaller headline which one gets
the italic type for thehandlebar, which one gets the
(20:57):
bold, Roman type. And so doingour eyes have been prepared for
receiving the information.
According to the graphictreatment as being valuable,
more valuable, less valuableabove the fold below the fold,
we don't have that on ourscreen. Our screens don't have
(21:19):
that sorting mechanism. If yougo to New York Times site, you
might see a replication of it ona generational level, then
below, or you can look at thetimes as showing you the stories
with similar kind of graphicdelineations. But particularly
on our social media, we don'thave that sorting mechanism. So
you're right, you would watch avideo of the killing of a man
(21:44):
and then the next moment you'dsee somebody dancing. And the
next one, what you see a cat.
Furthermore, is the way that weexamine our video when we
consume it. So we're likely tolook at the death of a video
about the death of someone andthen switch over to look at our
bank balances. And then switchfrom there to to an email to our
friends and they've gone back tothe killing someone. And they're
(22:07):
all treated with equal sizeequal take face equal
delineation so that we tend tothen work upon the the video and
the capturing of the death ofsomeone something that I would
hope most people would hold ustragic and solemn. And have it
paired with a cat videotrivializes it. So absolutely,
(22:31):
we have to be one of the thingsthat Mark and I do in this book
is try to give people anunderstanding of the vocabulary
of the media of our time. Andthat's really important. Every
new technology has had a periodwhere we are not adjusted to the
new vocabulary of the medium aslike new languages emerge. And
until we get adjusted to ituntil we learn its syntax and
(22:53):
its sentence structure, we arelikely to be confused by it more
than informed by it. So we needthis kind of exercise of
understanding what is the valueof something. And that's why
these curators, in a sense, wecall that use that term. But
they are really like editors.
They're like, people who guideus through something who share
(23:15):
our values are keyed or beingable to understand the media
that we are consuming day in andday out.
Yeah, absolutely. And, you know,the First Amendment protects
free speech and all its beautyand all its atrocity as well,
when when it's weaponized. SoTwitter and speaking of free
(23:37):
speech and the recentacquisition by Elon Musk of
Twitter, but potentialacquisition, do you have any
thoughts on that? Is that goingto be good for for democracy?
And in general?
Well, I subscribe to you know,I'm, I think of myself as a bit
of a constitutional scholar, andwe spend time reading about the
Constitution and in some detail,and I believe that the First
(24:00):
Amendment, you know, I asked mystudents early on, because I
taught the first amendment atthe collegiate level, and I
asked them, What does the FirstAmendment mean? And they usually
tell me that you can saywhatever you want to say. And I
say, well, that's sort of true,but not entirely true. There's
things you can't sayconstructions you can't me, you
can't create child pornography,you can't have us fighting
(24:20):
words, which is a sort ofcareful term, meaning you cannot
threaten someone, you. There'scertain libel laws that prevent
certain things that you can say,but the notion of that the
founders had for for the FirstAmendment was that it was
productive speech. There arereally two periods of importance
for the First Amendment that thefounding of the second one comes
(24:40):
to the 20th century around theFirst World War and we expand
the notion of what free speechreally means. But in each case,
there's a respect for thefounders belief that speech
should be constructive. Not thatyou would police speech that's
not constructive, but that youwould police speech that loses
all of its communicative valueand becomes in instead of like a
physical act like an assault, soI am all for free expression.
(25:07):
And I think most Americans wouldhold that very dear. But when
you want to speak to thepossibility of lifting some of
the regulations that Twitter nowimposes upon the speech that is
on Twitter, I am worried aboutthe non constructive, more
salted of speech that can emergeand be a danger to our public
(25:30):
discourse.
I noticed, you know, a big partof your book also involves the
social media and how themorality I think, if I can use
that word of some of the subjectmatter, and you had Janique,
with Charles, the, you're aboutto lose your job. Part of your
book, and I, you know, when Ifirst heard about this, I wasn't
quite sure where that was going.
Because it appears that the, theofficer or the private security
(25:54):
officer didn't actually lose hisjob that she was somewhat in the
violation of, you know, what shewas attempting to do get into a,
I think it was a gentlemen'sclub at that point in time, yet
she became a viral sensation,and really showed that the
message again, can be can beweaponized to some extent if if
needed. And I don't know ifweaponizing is the right word,
(26:17):
Mark, she definitely caught alot of people's attention, even
if she wasn't in the right atthat time, but used it to shout
a broader message of the forceof the power that that medium
class, the video camera andsocial media can can you talk a
little more about thatwe include it in the book,
because not because we thinkit's unique, but Charles, and
(26:38):
for those your listeners whodon't know, what this is about
is a woman who, who is beingdetained by by a security guard
outside a gentleman's club inSouth Carolina. And she is quite
outraged that she is beingdetained. And she tells the
security officer that he's gotno basis upon which to detain
(27:01):
her. And then she begins to sortof chant kind of rap, where she
says You about to lose your job.
And I think there was a danceassociated with it, and the
whole thing wentdance. And the key element, of
course, is that someone is is isrecording it on their cell phone
video. And that's what she'sreferencing is that your, you
(27:21):
know, whatever you do now, as apublic figure, you can be
recorded by video, and thatvideo will then be shown beyond
that its immediate circumstancesand could very well lead to you
being disciplined, right? Andthe fact that she can do that
the fact that she makes thatclaim is what interested us,
(27:42):
because she or two things.
Thanks, she made that claim wassort of she was saying what is
sort of one of the touch phrasesof our time, which is that
there's always someone watchingyou, there's always a camera,
which can be a good thing and abad thing, as we know. But the
important thing is that thepower of surveillance now is not
(28:03):
exclusive to the state. Thepower of surveillance now is
held by every one of us in ourpocket, so that we can police
the police and offense, right,which I think is what she was
saying. And you're sort ofcolorful way. Interesting thing
about that episode is whathappens with the video. So she,
(28:24):
she, the video was posted byactually by another, I think one
of the another member of thesecurity staff. And it because
it goes viral. And it ends upbeing remixed and turned out as
this meme, where the phrase youabout to lose your job becomes
(28:44):
sort of popular and those of youhave not seen it should go on
and just put into Google youabout to lose your job remix,
and you'll see what I mean.
There's there's this wonderfulsort of taking of a raw piece of
raw material, raw video, ormedia material and create and
creating something completelynew out of it. And that's one of
(29:04):
the other charms of thetechnology of our time is that
she her point which resonatedwith so many people because it
was demonstrating a shift in ourthinking from the surveillance
now being held by the people whoare used to be surveil. The
second thing though, is the ideathat you can play with these
expressions right? You can takethem and pull them like taffy
(29:27):
and reassert them and put thethe end of the beginning of the
beginning of the end of Maycultural references to Bugs
Bunny or to Childish Gambino orto JMO. And suddenly you have
this wonderful creative thingthat you've that is both
entertaining and poignant. Andthat's why we use her is that
it's for that purpose not toexamine whether she was in the
(29:49):
right or she was in the wrongwhether and here's the was the
test of that in some respects.
The Security offers himself asyou said to not lose his job
more than that he posted thevideo itself and said he really
enjoyed the the rap that shecame up with. So there was in
(30:09):
some ways it was a it was ahappy outcome to what was a
confrontational momentfor sure. And and it just drives
home the point that with greatpower to steal a line from
Spider Man and Marvel comicuniverse with great power comes
great responsibility. And, youknow, we, we have this ability
to alter people's lives andmaybe catch a snapshot or just a
few seconds of a bad moment insomeone's life. You know, we can
(30:32):
look at the Amy Cooper, theChristian Cooper dog walking
incident in Central Park, ormaybe that was was, you know,
inherent to her actual personalpersonality or maybe she was
stressed out by that moment. Butyeah, we can definitely alters
people's lives. So thatresponsibility is is huge. And
it's so easilyI think it's important, it seems
that that episode seems trivialby comparison to what the other
(30:54):
things that we've seen. However,there's something to be learned
by the fact that under stress,she reverted to a racist
characterization of what washappening, right. I mean, again,
for your listeners who don'tremember what happened there,
Amy Cooper and Christian Cooperunrelated by the way they happen
to share the same last name,which is also sort of poetic in
some way. Right, exactly. ButAmy Cooper, white woman in
(31:16):
Central Park walking her dog,Christian Cooper, a birdwatcher
and a section of Central Parkthat's usually reserved for the
bird watchers. And she he askedher to put a leash on your dog I
think it is or actuallyyeah, she was walking her dog
off leashYes. And he says this require
that you have a dog on leash andshe unloads on him and then
calls the police and saysthere's a black man threatening
(31:39):
me while she filmed the entireincident by the way I think she
was the ones holding the cameraor am I mistaken on that?
No, I think it no it wasChristian Cooper was one of
them. But but the but theresulting video portrayed her as
is popular Parliament's here asa carrot in other words, a white
(32:01):
woman who his caricatures blackpeople as black men in
particular, as scary and up tono good. This man couldn't have
been up to anything but goodwhen he was studying the birds
of Central Park. And of course,so this I think the reason that
(32:22):
that resonated was not becauseit was such a anything in
comparable to some of theterrible things we've seen
happening on video, includingthe taking of lives.
Yeah, that incidences show. Oh,I was gonna say coincidentally,
that incident happened the sameweek that George Floyd's death
occurred. Yeah,it did. And so I think it
combined with George Floyd inthat way, but I think it also
showed this sense that beneatha, a more simple exterior could
(32:45):
lie very dark and disturbingcaricatures that people have in
the back of their consciousness.
Well, Todd, when people readyour book, what do you hope they
come away with?
I hope that they feel a deeperunderstanding of the things that
(33:06):
have happened in the past fewyears that in particular, that
they have not only anunderstanding of these episodes
that we talk about in there, butthat they see the rich and
complex and disturbing historythat led up to these episodes
that these episodes don't happenin a vacuum, that the country
(33:26):
has been dealing with a racialhistory that is been that is
shameful. That is disturbing,that remains complex. And that,
out of that they they feel thenew sense of understanding of,
of the people around them,people marginalized communities,
(33:47):
people who are seeking racialjustice, and that we use the
media that we have met haverevealed these truths, with care
and attention to try to todiscover more a more welcoming
and loving community.
Absolutely. Well, Todd Brewsterthis has been a fantastic
(34:08):
conversation where can people goto find out more about your work
the work of Mark Lamont Hill andmore importantly, where they can
buy your book seen and unseen?
Sure, well, you could buy it atany any of the major
booksellers, including Amazon, Iwould always encourage people to
seek out the independentbookstores in their midst
because they are they're thelifeblood of reading they tend
(34:32):
to be much much more helpful asa as a reading kind of community
and so I urge you to use go to afrequent your local bookstore
that is an independent store butif you don't have access to
internet store, Amazon, Barnesand Noble all the major
booksellers are selling it. Forme I've my personal website is
taught through screwed upmarket, I believe, Mark Lamont
(34:54):
hill.com And you can see us onsocial media. You can see us on
LinkedIn and all the other majorsites But Google our names and I
think you'll see some of theother work that we've done. And
and Joe, I thank you for havingus on having me on this case
alone. But um, I appreciate theattention to the book and you
have a briefing going here withGrit Nation, so graduation.
Joe Cadwell (35:17):
All right. Well, thank you so much for your time,
sir. It's been a real pleasure.
I guess day was Todd Brewster,co author of the book seen and
unseen technology, social mediaand the fight for racial
justice, which is now availableat Simon and Schuster.com. Or
wherever you buy books. Well,that wraps up another episode of
the grid nation podcast, pleaseconsider sharing the show with a
friend, family member, co workeror anyone else you think may get
(35:39):
something out of it. If youhaven't already done so. I'd
really appreciate it if youcould take one minute to leave a
review on Apple podcasts orSpotify. It definitely helps and
grow in the show. As always,thank you for your continued
support. And until next time,this is Joe Cadwell reminding
you to work safe, work smart andstay union strong
Todd Brewster (36:03):
Yeah, and I love what you're doing. I think it's
interesting this idea of theblue collar audience I grew up
you know a simple simple town inNew Jersey and then I was in
Indiana for most of my my teenyears and my college years and I
still think that um, the workingclass of America is where we're
our hope isI agree as well are the one of
the last bastions of defenseagainst the corporate greed that
seems to be running roughshodover America and, and so I do my
(36:25):
part
Welcome to the Grit Nation Podcast. I'm Joe Cadwell,
writer, producer and host of theshow and on today's episode I'll
be talking with Best SellingAuthor Todd Brewster who
together with co-writer MarkLamont Hill have written Seen
and Unseen - Technology, SocialMedia and the Fight for Social
Justice. This powerful book is ariveting exploration of the ways
in which visual media haveshaped the nation's narrative on
(00:30):
race. As fundamentally allthrough the centuries long
battle for racial justice willopen our conversation as Todd
outlines his career as ajournalist for Time Life
magazine, a senior producer forABC News and his fellowship at
Yale Law School. Well, thatexplained the events that
brought him and Mark together tocollaborate on their book. Next,
we'll discuss the roletechnologies such as still
(00:52):
photography and moving picturesof blade and shaping our views
and opinions. And why hebelieves ubiquity of cell phone
cameras has now democratized ourability to document history and
drive social change. Later,we'll dig into four recent high
profile events ranging from themurder of George Floyd in
Minneapolis to the unite theright rally in Charlottesville,
South Carolina, that havechanged the way we understand
(01:14):
race relations in America.
Wonder conversation by unpackingthe limitations technology and
social media have and sortingand prioritizing stories of
significant social value, andthose that don't. After the
episode, be sure to check outthe show notes for more
information about Todd Brewsterand his recent work seen and
unseen. And now on to the show.
(01:44):
Todd Brewster Welco me to gritnation.
Todd Brewster (01:46):
Yeah, thank you it's my pleasure to be here.
Thank you Todd, for taking yourtime to be on my show. Today.
I'm really excited to talk withyou. You have recently written a
book with Mark Lamont Hillcalled Seen and Unseen
Technology, Social Media and theFight for Racial Justice. And
before we get into your book,Todd, I was hoping you could
(02:06):
tell us the listener audience alittle bit more about who you
are and what got you to writethis book?
Yeah, sure. I am a longtimejournalist. I'm originally from
New Jersey, I then throughConnecticut, and out to Indiana.
I've spent my formative years inIndiana, I grew up there, went
to Indiana University, became ajournalist, almost right out of
(02:26):
college, and I worked for timelife for a number of years, then
moved over to ABC News, where Iwas a senior producer, working
very closely with PeterJennings, I think some of your
audience remember Peter? Oh,sure. We we wrote two books
together and did a bit largedocumentary series. I went from
there to Yale Law School where Iwas a fellow in journalism and
(02:47):
then to a West Point where I wasI ran an oral history center,
doing a long video interviewswith both soldiers and officers
and, and policymakers. Fromthere too. Right write a book on
called called makers gamble,which I'm very proud of as well,
which is about making thedecision to emancipate the
(03:08):
slaves. And this this, themonths leading up to that, the
sign of the EmancipationProclamation, and from there,
went to Mount Holyoke Collegewhere I taught for about five
years journalism there. And I,what prompted me to do this book
was that Mark and I have beenfriends for a while, he did a
book called nobody and I wrotethe foreword for that book. And
we worked closely with him onthe ideas in that book, and it
(03:32):
helped them shape it. We havebeen in conversation as friends
since then. And when all thisnews happened in 2020, when we
became bombarded by these videosof, of racial violence, really
that that were built up to 2020.
When you think of TrayvonMartin, you think of Michael
Brown, you think of Eric Garner,but it was George Floyd's
(03:55):
killing two years ago thatreally rocked the nation and the
world and our being journalismprofessors. Both of us were very
curious about the role of thecell phone video, the role of
video and social media andtechnology in the raising of the
bar and a sense for racialreckoning in this country. So we
(04:18):
talked about it endlessly andended up with a with a mark is a
professor I should say I had atTemple University, trained
anthropologist as well as ajournalism professor there. And
we, we found that we wanted togo into some depth on the role
of technology as sort of theconduit through which the
(04:40):
stories are told and how thatshapes our understanding of
them. And so we drafted out abook idea that took a lot of got
a lot of attention. And thenhere we are,
Joe Cadwell (04:50):
And here we are in and having read your book, it
looks like you've taken for sortof modern day situations and use
that as a platform in which Togive a historical analysis of
the use of media throughouthistory to sort of create a
narrative,
Todd Brewster (05:05):
exactly so, the four episodes are certainly the
killing of George Floyd. Theviolence in Kenosha that was
notable for the arrival of a 17year old among those who
were Kyle Rittenhouse.
Kyle Rittenhouse exactly who waspart of this sort of militia
group that rendered into thecity in order to protect private
(05:25):
property and lead to aconfrontation that where he
killed two people and injured athird. The third one is the
killing of ahmaud arbery, ajogger in Glynn County, Georgia.
And the fourth one is the neoNazi march on Charlottesville in
2017. That resulted in the deathof one woman who was a protester
(05:47):
there,right. And all of these have
again in common they werecaptured basically by civilians,
or just citizens will say thatcitizens on the street using
ubiquitous cell phone withcamera integration.
Yeah, I mean, the big story ofour own time, it seems, is the
democratization of technology orcommunications technologies.
(06:07):
And, you know, it would havebeen unthinkable that a
generation ago that a teenagegirl 17 years old walking down
the streets in Minneapolis andseeing a police confrontation
with a black man on the on theneck extinguishing is his last
breath could be caught on video,by the use of a single small
(06:32):
instrument that's hardly biggerthan a postcard. But that's what
happened in 2020. And it was thenature of that killing, I think,
in part and we can go into moredepth on this was the nature of
that killing as well as the thesort of disinterested nature of
the one who took it bydisinterest. I just mean that
she didn't have an axe to grindwith no agenda. She was wanting
(06:53):
to take care of her littlesister, I believe it was to cut
foods in order to get somesnacks. And suddenly, she is
best in the position where sheis writing history. That video,
of course, was shown the worldover. Even more importantly,
people who didn't see the videoknew about the video, and knew
about one aspect of thisconfrontation, which was the
(07:16):
brutal killing that happened onthe streets of Minneapolis,
which drove people to thestreets and contributed a sense
of outrage worldwide, thepowerless against the powerful.
Exactly. And I think you know,for for the historical
perspective, it seems like forso long, the people that were
able to sort of drive thenarrative were the ones with the
(07:38):
money, the ones with thetechnology, the filmmakers, the
the media, the mainstream media,the but nowadays, it seems like
everyone can have an active rolein in the democratization of
racial justice when it when ityou know, they have that
powerful instrument in theirhand, and they have the ability
to livestream or just veryquickly get it out where
(07:58):
everyone can see it.
Yeah, I mean, it's interesting.
So take your mind back to theearly part of the 20th century,
when the first major filmappears The Birth of a Nation
it's it's a very artful film, itwas a terrific use of the medium
funded by what we guess we callventure venture capitalist at
the time, who were trying outthis new medium called film,
(08:20):
right. And, and done by adirector named DW Griffith, who
turns out to be one of the greatinnovators in film history, but
who also was a Confederatesympathizer and a supporter of
white supremacy. And so the filmtells the story of two families,
and one of Northern family whena southern family who are torn
(08:41):
apart by the Civil War, and whoeventually find their way back
together, having both renouncedthe evils of the Negro race and
black people are portrayed inthat film as lazy, ignorant,
stupid, fraudulent, corrupt.
(09:01):
They are, are the period of thatthe history described of the of
the reconstruction is is cast asa mistake in American history, a
departure from the naturalprogression of the American
idea. And the story of the CivilWar is filled with the spirit of
what's sometimes called the mythof the lost cause. Where the
(09:22):
claim is that the South wouldhave had the superior moral
position in the war then onlylost because they were
outnumbered and out financed.
And the interesting thing aboutthat, that story told in the
film, The Birth of a Nation isto help give rise to a lot of
white supremacy that we knowfrom the early part of the 20th
century in the ads for thepremiere the film in the Atlanta
(09:45):
newspapers. The ads will appearnext to ads for the Ku Klux
Klan. And so the Ku Klux Klanhad a revival in part because of
the spirit around the Birth of aNation. So you say who has the
tools of Power? Well, the numberof black leaders at the time of
WB Dubois and Monroe Trotter,were enthusiastic about telling
(10:05):
a counter story, you know,getting a film that would
actually debunk what was beingsaid an inverse of the nation.
But they didn't have the funds.
They didn't have the capital,they didn't have the cultural
capital and financial capital.
And so that story was untold.
And the myth of the Lost Causegained steam through most of the
20th century, not only inpopular culture, but also in
(10:29):
academia, and certainly in theminds of those who felt through
the bitterness of theConfederate defeat.
And again, this is 1915, the useof this new medium film The the
motion picture, there was asilent film birth of the nation.
And this was no indie film. Imean, this was professionally
(10:50):
directed, produced, to someextent acted, and was actually
the first film I understand tobe shown in the White House. It
was shown to Woodrow Wilson in1915, a three hour movie at
that.
Yes, exactly. Wilson, expressedhis admiration for the film and
said, regrettably, the storythat tells is all too true, I'm
(11:11):
paraphrasing a little bit, butnot by too much. So you can see
that the cultural ascendancy atthat time was towards white
supremacy, and that the filmrepresented that Yeah.
So again, the folks who had themoney controlled sort of the
narrative and again, trying todo a historical remembrance of a
bygone era and change theoutcome of people's minds by
(11:33):
using that medium. Before that,you know, I understand that
Frederick Douglass was, was abig proponent of photography,
you know, before the motionpicture, we had photography, and
I was, I didn't understand thatdirect correlation until I read
your book.
There are two commandingtechnologies that emerged in the
19th century. I mean, we thinkof the 20th century is the era
(11:53):
of technology. But the 19thcentury had two very commanding
technologies, one of them is thetelegraph. And the other one is
the photograph. And those of youknow, your, your, the story of
Abraham Lincoln will be will nodyour heads that that the
telegraph was a compellingtechnology to our 16th president
(12:14):
who love to sit in the telegraphoffice, if you remember those
scenes from the from the movieLincoln, he's composed is
actually that the emancipationproclamation by sitting in the
telegraph office, FrederickDouglass, who was born a slave,
and made his way to the northand was one of the most
commanding or rhetorical forcesfor abolition. He, he loved the
(12:37):
photograph, you thoughtassassin, he thought it would
have reformative influence uponthe country. And one of the
things that he felt wasparticularly important was that
it could establish black peopleas human beings. Now remember,
he was born in slavery he wasthis was a time when there was a
lot of pseudo science thatclaimed that there was a racial
hierarchy that, that put blacksmore on the level of animals
(13:02):
than on human beings. So believeit or not, the photograph was a
way of showing that black peoplewere human and deserve the kind
of dignity that that they weredemanding. He wrote number of
autobiographies for the samepurpose. The photograph
represented his visualexpression of who he was, and
his texts represented the storyof who he was. And he was the
(13:27):
most photographed man in the19th century, more than making
himself and we think of as beingphotographed so many times by
Matthew Brady and MatthewBrady's associates. So when we
talk about the role oftechnology in the history of
race in America, we have toinclude stories going all the
way back to Frederick Douglassin the late 19th century.
From there, we move into themotion pictures from the motion
(13:48):
pictures, then we get intosomething that's more in the
hands of professional photojournalist.
Yeah, photojournalism becomesStorytellers for the civil
rights movement in the 1960s,the 1950s. We know about the
story of Little Rock, but thestory of the Montgomery Bus
Boycott about the story of theSelma march about the story of
the March on Washington, largelythrough these iconic photograph
(14:10):
that were produced by photojournalists. Many of those that
I just kicked off, I'm sure yourlisteners are thinking, Oh, yes,
I know that photograph becauseit's so famous. They help tell
the story of riots inBirmingham, Alabama, after the
killing and the bombing of thechurch there that killed those
those young girls and the firehoses used by bull Connor's
(14:33):
police force on the protesters.
Those pictures, interestingly,helped turn the tide towards the
civil rights movement, becausepeople had only had descriptions
of what was going on in some ofthese racist communities in the
South. Now they had photographsand the photographs were a a
major factor in in pushing thecountry towards the acceptance
(14:57):
of the Civil Rights Act. Youthink about that role there that
you think about the role thatthe that the videos of the past
few years, and particularlyGeorge Floyd video have had in
terms of commanding publicsympathy. And I think you see a
similarity. AndI think one of the downsides of
the professional photojournalist and the in the
(15:17):
mainstream media using thosetypes of photography, again,
going back to people thatpotentially could have an agenda
or self serving interest topromote certain images. Now,
that's sort of been taken away,again, given to everyone
everyone has the ability now torepresent both sides of a story,
whether it's flattering to oneside or the other. And, and
(15:38):
that's why I think, you know,having observed the George Floyd
video numerous times, not onlythe one that Daniella Fraser
took with her cell phone outsidethe cup foods, but the one that
the officer was wearing on hisbody cam and seeing both sides
of the the incident. And again,people going into this either
doing their job or without anagenda. And it really does spin
(16:00):
a different narrative. Andwithout that, technology, people
are now resorting back to a timebefore photographs before say
the advent of the the handhelddigital camera that was used to
capture the Rodney King episodeback in the early 90s. And now
we're relying on people'smemory. We're relying on
(16:20):
people's personal bias. We'rerelying on people's agenda, if
you will, but all that's beentaken away. And now you can see
these images for yourself andmake your own decision as to
what is actually going on. Isthere a downside to that?
Yeah. So that was about to go tothat if absolutely, just so you
(16:41):
know, one of the things that youreferenced that people might
have that have had a bias whowere doing the photojournalism
and it 60s, it was more likelythat it was a corporate media
bias that anything wasn't somuch a personal bias. I mean,
the way that the powerstructures of media
organizations work was that itwas you were sent on an
(17:01):
assignment essentially, to getwhat was there. But there had to
be an attitude of right awaythat there was newsworthiness to
what they were going to see.
When he's shift ahead, howevermany years to our own moment,
one of the one of the moreimpressive things that we're
seeing now is the places thatwere photo journalists, might
not never have been said before.
(17:25):
And this was part of the titleof our book seen and unseen,
that we're seeing in this livesof people who have been unseen
by cameras before this. Thatincludes not only the police
violence on people of color, asevidenced by the George Floyd
video, but also all manner ofdetail into the stories of black
lives or otherwise of othermarginalized people. And the
(17:46):
ability not only as you saidearlier to take to take a video,
but also to show it to post iton Facebook to be able to tweet
on on Twitter to be able tocompose short little vignettes
that you can post your hobbiesand have be seen. That's changed
the whole nature of our publicconversation.
Absolutely. And, and I can'tremember where I heard it, maybe
(18:09):
I read it in your book, maybeone of the many podcasts I
looked, listen to, honestly,Todd prepping for this. But one
of the downsides of just havingthis, this constant access to to
information, streaminginformation on our phones is
basically the size of the phonedoesn't really give any emphasis
to the magnitude of the story athand. One minute, you're seeing
(18:30):
the life literally squeezed outof George Floyd on a street in
Minneapolis, the next you'rewatching some, some college
kids, you know, do the latestdance craze. Next, you're
watching a cat video, the nextthing you know, and on and on it
goes and then you're back tosomething horrible and graphic
and that screen doesn't change.
And I think in a way it sort ofdumbs down our ability to
process and understand, youknow, the severity of what we're
(18:50):
seeing,right? Which is why in the end,
for all the benefits of havingcameras be able to record raw
truth on them. We need curatorsto help us understand the truth
that are being sewn to us. Andwe tend sometimes to just count
those as bias I would say don'tdiscount those as bias. judge
(19:11):
them for their attention to thedetail of the truth that they're
gathering and for the valuesthat they bring to those truths,
right what is it that they valueI mean, it's very interesting to
look at the video for instanceof, of Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17
year old who kills two peopleand injures a third after he
(19:32):
comes in as a member of themilitia group into Kenosha and
see that have a video of youseen by one pair of eyes and
he's recorded as a as a as theaggressor and have seen by
another pair of eyes who see himas a defender. So the video
doesn't carry a moral compassyou know the video doesn't have
(19:53):
its does it brand new to theheroes and the villains for us.
We have to still fit figure thatout ourselves. And you're right
to say this is very interestingpoint you make jokes about the,
the, the way that the video aswe see it as we recognize it
across social media inparticular, but on the internet
in general does not carry a kindof sorting mechanism that allows
(20:15):
us to know what's important,what's not important. You know,
when I teach journalism, one ofthe first things I do with my
classes, I bring in an oldfashioned broadsheet. And for
your listeners who don't knowwhat that is, that's the long
tall paper like the New YorkTimes folds out, right? It's not
a tabloid, which is which wasinvented in part two, for
readers on the subway so theycould easily open like a book
(20:36):
and read it and then stuffinginto their their briefcase or
whatever the broadsheet not onlyrank the news that you're seeing
in front of you, by virtue ofits position on the page, it
also allows the publishingcompany to determine which gets
the big headline which gets thesmaller headline which one gets
the italic type for thehandlebar, which one gets the
(20:57):
bold, Roman type. And so doingour eyes have been prepared for
receiving the information.
According to the graphictreatment as being valuable,
more valuable, less valuableabove the fold below the fold,
we don't have that on ourscreen. Our screens don't have
(21:19):
that sorting mechanism. If yougo to New York Times site, you
might see a replication of it ona generational level, then
below, or you can look at thetimes as showing you the stories
with similar kind of graphicdelineations. But particularly
on our social media, we don'thave that sorting mechanism. So
you're right, you would watch avideo of the killing of a man
(21:44):
and then the next moment you'dsee somebody dancing. And the
next one, what you see a cat.
Furthermore, is the way that weexamine our video when we
consume it. So we're likely tolook at the death of a video
about the death of someone andthen switch over to look at our
bank balances. And then switchfrom there to to an email to our
friends and they've gone back tothe killing someone. And they're
(22:07):
all treated with equal sizeequal take face equal
delineation so that we tend tothen work upon the the video and
the capturing of the death ofsomeone something that I would
hope most people would hold ustragic and solemn. And have it
paired with a cat videotrivializes it. So absolutely,
(22:31):
we have to be one of the thingsthat Mark and I do in this book
is try to give people anunderstanding of the vocabulary
of the media of our time. Andthat's really important. Every
new technology has had a periodwhere we are not adjusted to the
new vocabulary of the medium aslike new languages emerge. And
until we get adjusted to ituntil we learn its syntax and
(22:53):
its sentence structure, we arelikely to be confused by it more
than informed by it. So we needthis kind of exercise of
understanding what is the valueof something. And that's why
these curators, in a sense, wecall that use that term. But
they are really like editors.
They're like, people who guideus through something who share
(23:15):
our values are keyed or beingable to understand the media
that we are consuming day in andday out.
Yeah, absolutely. And, you know,the First Amendment protects
free speech and all its beautyand all its atrocity as well,
when when it's weaponized. SoTwitter and speaking of free
(23:37):
speech and the recentacquisition by Elon Musk of
Twitter, but potentialacquisition, do you have any
thoughts on that? Is that goingto be good for for democracy?
And in general?
Well, I subscribe to you know,I'm, I think of myself as a bit
of a constitutional scholar, andwe spend time reading about the
Constitution and in some detail,and I believe that the First
(24:00):
Amendment, you know, I asked mystudents early on, because I
taught the first amendment atthe collegiate level, and I
asked them, What does the FirstAmendment mean? And they usually
tell me that you can saywhatever you want to say. And I
say, well, that's sort of true,but not entirely true. There's
things you can't sayconstructions you can't me, you
can't create child pornography,you can't have us fighting
(24:20):
words, which is a sort ofcareful term, meaning you cannot
threaten someone, you. There'scertain libel laws that prevent
certain things that you can say,but the notion of that the
founders had for for the FirstAmendment was that it was
productive speech. There arereally two periods of importance
for the First Amendment that thefounding of the second one comes
(24:40):
to the 20th century around theFirst World War and we expand
the notion of what free speechreally means. But in each case,
there's a respect for thefounders belief that speech
should be constructive. Not thatyou would police speech that's
not constructive, but that youwould police speech that loses
all of its communicative valueand becomes in instead of like a
physical act like an assault, soI am all for free expression.
(25:07):
And I think most Americans wouldhold that very dear. But when
you want to speak to thepossibility of lifting some of
the regulations that Twitter nowimposes upon the speech that is
on Twitter, I am worried aboutthe non constructive, more
salted of speech that can emergeand be a danger to our public
(25:30):
discourse.
I noticed, you know, a big partof your book also involves the
social media and how themorality I think, if I can use
that word of some of the subjectmatter, and you had Janique,
with Charles, the, you're aboutto lose your job. Part of your
book, and I, you know, when Ifirst heard about this, I wasn't
quite sure where that was going.
Because it appears that the, theofficer or the private security
(25:54):
officer didn't actually lose hisjob that she was somewhat in the
violation of, you know, what shewas attempting to do get into a,
I think it was a gentlemen'sclub at that point in time, yet
she became a viral sensation,and really showed that the
message again, can be can beweaponized to some extent if if
needed. And I don't know ifweaponizing is the right word,
(26:17):
Mark, she definitely caught alot of people's attention, even
if she wasn't in the right atthat time, but used it to shout
a broader message of the forceof the power that that medium
class, the video camera andsocial media can can you talk a
little more about thatwe include it in the book,
because not because we thinkit's unique, but Charles, and
(26:38):
for those your listeners whodon't know, what this is about
is a woman who, who is beingdetained by by a security guard
outside a gentleman's club inSouth Carolina. And she is quite
outraged that she is beingdetained. And she tells the
security officer that he's gotno basis upon which to detain
(27:01):
her. And then she begins to sortof chant kind of rap, where she
says You about to lose your job.
And I think there was a danceassociated with it, and the
whole thing wentdance. And the key element, of
course, is that someone is is isrecording it on their cell phone
video. And that's what she'sreferencing is that your, you
(27:21):
know, whatever you do now, as apublic figure, you can be
recorded by video, and thatvideo will then be shown beyond
that its immediate circumstancesand could very well lead to you
being disciplined, right? Andthe fact that she can do that
the fact that she makes thatclaim is what interested us,
(27:42):
because she or two things.
Thanks, she made that claim wassort of she was saying what is
sort of one of the touch phrasesof our time, which is that
there's always someone watchingyou, there's always a camera,
which can be a good thing and abad thing, as we know. But the
important thing is that thepower of surveillance now is not
(28:03):
exclusive to the state. Thepower of surveillance now is
held by every one of us in ourpocket, so that we can police
the police and offense, right,which I think is what she was
saying. And you're sort ofcolorful way. Interesting thing
about that episode is whathappens with the video. So she,
(28:24):
she, the video was posted byactually by another, I think one
of the another member of thesecurity staff. And it because
it goes viral. And it ends upbeing remixed and turned out as
this meme, where the phrase youabout to lose your job becomes
(28:44):
sort of popular and those of youhave not seen it should go on
and just put into Google youabout to lose your job remix,
and you'll see what I mean.
There's there's this wonderfulsort of taking of a raw piece of
raw material, raw video, ormedia material and create and
creating something completelynew out of it. And that's one of
(29:04):
the other charms of thetechnology of our time is that
she her point which resonatedwith so many people because it
was demonstrating a shift in ourthinking from the surveillance
now being held by the people whoare used to be surveil. The
second thing though, is the ideathat you can play with these
expressions right? You can takethem and pull them like taffy
(29:27):
and reassert them and put thethe end of the beginning of the
beginning of the end of Maycultural references to Bugs
Bunny or to Childish Gambino orto JMO. And suddenly you have
this wonderful creative thingthat you've that is both
entertaining and poignant. Andthat's why we use her is that
it's for that purpose not toexamine whether she was in the
(29:49):
right or she was in the wrongwhether and here's the was the
test of that in some respects.
The Security offers himself asyou said to not lose his job
more than that he posted thevideo itself and said he really
enjoyed the the rap that shecame up with. So there was in
(30:09):
some ways it was a it was ahappy outcome to what was a
confrontational momentfor sure. And and it just drives
home the point that with greatpower to steal a line from
Spider Man and Marvel comicuniverse with great power comes
great responsibility. And, youknow, we, we have this ability
to alter people's lives andmaybe catch a snapshot or just a
few seconds of a bad moment insomeone's life. You know, we can
(30:32):
look at the Amy Cooper, theChristian Cooper dog walking
incident in Central Park, ormaybe that was was, you know,
inherent to her actual personalpersonality or maybe she was
stressed out by that moment. Butyeah, we can definitely alters
people's lives. So thatresponsibility is is huge. And
it's so easilyI think it's important, it seems
that that episode seems trivialby comparison to what the other
(30:54):
things that we've seen. However,there's something to be learned
by the fact that under stress,she reverted to a racist
characterization of what washappening, right. I mean, again,
for your listeners who don'tremember what happened there,
Amy Cooper and Christian Cooperunrelated by the way they happen
to share the same last name,which is also sort of poetic in
some way. Right, exactly. ButAmy Cooper, white woman in
(31:16):
Central Park walking her dog,Christian Cooper, a birdwatcher
and a section of Central Parkthat's usually reserved for the
bird watchers. And she he askedher to put a leash on your dog I
think it is or actuallyyeah, she was walking her dog
off leashYes. And he says this require
that you have a dog on leash andshe unloads on him and then
calls the police and saysthere's a black man threatening
(31:39):
me while she filmed the entireincident by the way I think she
was the ones holding the cameraor am I mistaken on that?
No, I think it no it wasChristian Cooper was one of
them. But but the but theresulting video portrayed her as
is popular Parliament's here asa carrot in other words, a white
(32:01):
woman who his caricatures blackpeople as black men in
particular, as scary and up tono good. This man couldn't have
been up to anything but goodwhen he was studying the birds
of Central Park. And of course,so this I think the reason that
(32:22):
that resonated was not becauseit was such a anything in
comparable to some of theterrible things we've seen
happening on video, includingthe taking of lives.
Yeah, that incidences show. Oh,I was gonna say coincidentally,
that incident happened the sameweek that George Floyd's death
occurred. Yeah,it did. And so I think it
combined with George Floyd inthat way, but I think it also
showed this sense that beneatha, a more simple exterior could
(32:45):
lie very dark and disturbingcaricatures that people have in
the back of their consciousness.
Well, Todd, when people readyour book, what do you hope they
come away with?
I hope that they feel a deeperunderstanding of the things that
(33:06):
have happened in the past fewyears that in particular, that
they have not only anunderstanding of these episodes
that we talk about in there, butthat they see the rich and
complex and disturbing historythat led up to these episodes
that these episodes don't happenin a vacuum, that the country
(33:26):
has been dealing with a racialhistory that is been that is
shameful. That is disturbing,that remains complex. And that,
out of that they they feel thenew sense of understanding of,
of the people around them,people marginalized communities,
(33:47):
people who are seeking racialjustice, and that we use the
media that we have met haverevealed these truths, with care
and attention to try to todiscover more a more welcoming
and loving community.
Absolutely. Well, Todd Brewsterthis has been a fantastic
(34:08):
conversation where can people goto find out more about your work
the work of Mark Lamont Hill andmore importantly, where they can
buy your book seen and unseen?
Sure, well, you could buy it atany any of the major
booksellers, including Amazon, Iwould always encourage people to
seek out the independentbookstores in their midst
because they are they're thelifeblood of reading they tend
(34:32):
to be much much more helpful asa as a reading kind of community
and so I urge you to use go to afrequent your local bookstore
that is an independent store butif you don't have access to
internet store, Amazon, Barnesand Noble all the major
booksellers are selling it. Forme I've my personal website is
taught through screwed upmarket, I believe, Mark Lamont
(34:54):
hill.com And you can see us onsocial media. You can see us on
LinkedIn and all the other majorsites But Google our names and I
think you'll see some of theother work that we've done. And
and Joe, I thank you for havingus on having me on this case
alone. But um, I appreciate theattention to the book and you
have a briefing going here withGrit Nation, so graduation.
Joe Cadwell (35:17):
All right. Well, thank you so much for your time,
sir. It's been a real pleasure.
I guess day was Todd Brewster,co author of the book seen and
unseen technology, social mediaand the fight for racial
justice, which is now availableat Simon and Schuster.com. Or
wherever you buy books. Well,that wraps up another episode of
the grid nation podcast, pleaseconsider sharing the show with a
friend, family member, co workeror anyone else you think may get
(35:39):
something out of it. If youhaven't already done so. I'd
really appreciate it if youcould take one minute to leave a
review on Apple podcasts orSpotify. It definitely helps and
grow in the show. As always,thank you for your continued
support. And until next time,this is Joe Cadwell reminding
you to work safe, work smart andstay union strong
Todd Brewster (36:03):
Yeah, and I love what you're doing. I think it's
interesting this idea of theblue collar audience I grew up
you know a simple simple town inNew Jersey and then I was in
Indiana for most of my my teenyears and my college years and I
still think that um, the workingclass of America is where we're
our hope isI agree as well are the one of
the last bastions of defenseagainst the corporate greed that
seems to be running roughshodover America and, and so I do my
(36:25):
part
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.