The Gezi Park Protests And The Delayed Media Response

Any time there is a big ado and it is in spirit against corporatism or authoritarianism there is one easy media conclusion to make if you live in the West: you aren't going to hear a goddamn thing about it. Coverage of Occupy Wall Street was spotty enough and it happened in the West's back yard. But don't worry: when the internet isn't being creepy or fighting about fucktarded opinions, it is accumulating data and 1:10000 of its population is presenting information with as little bias as possible.

To be honest, the Gezi Park Protests are much more supportable than Occupy Wall Street. Why? I mean, sure, both protests had legitimate issues, but only in Turkey has it become egregious enough to erupt in violence. Occupy Wall Street, if you'll remember, was pretty tame. Innocent teenage girls getting pepper-sprayed, drum circles, the mildest police brutality since a drunk white dude got arrested after a hockey game, and the list goes on. Nobody was impressed. The media largely skipped and told the basics, so that apologists and the uncaring middle class could infer it was a bunch of a dumb goddamn hippies (while their 800 billion dollars in tax monies had long gone up the noses of the financial industry).

Turkey, however, is lit up with Mediterranean passion. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the sinister leader figure around whom these protests center, is sort of a hard-line 'Right-Wing Traditional Values Politician'. In the West he would be seen as a creepy, sinister vampire with a hidden agenda - the Right would generally hail him as Reagan Reborn or something nonsensical. In Turkey, a much more serious populace suffered Erdogan's fuckery quietly until he took a step too far and okayed a plan to turn the last park in downtown Istanbul (or Constantinople if you've been living under a rock for the last 600 years) into a goddamn mixed-use shopping mall.

Shopping malls are absolutely the devil, but they're not properly Satanesque until they eat up scarce greenery. I understand the irony of a Traditional Values Muslim Politician (who hates kissing, beer, and young people) destroying a natural place of peace, but that's the oldest game in the West, where so-called conservatives have bulldozed forests and pillaged history with such acumen that the general populace doesn't even care. In the West, however, no matter how powerful our corporate overlords, the last park in a city would never be bulldozed for a goddamn mall/condo construction project based on a preexisting militaristic building. Despicable.

So, quite rightly, ordinary Turks went apeshit and did their best to stop the destruction of an innocent park. The police responded harshly, shooting tear-gas everywhere and blasting people with water cannons. There were reports of civilians getting shot with bullets as well, in case things weren't bad enough. The military sided, unofficially, with the protestors. That was back on 28 May 2013. Since then the western media have made roughly 5% of a big deal about this news, probably in deference to stubborn Erdogan, who is 'our friend in Turkey' and likely portrayed as some kind of nonsense 'bulwark against radicalization'.

This struggle could overturn the Erdogan political dynasty, with unknown effects for Turkey, a vibrant up-and-comer in the world.  Erdogan has done what all Traditional Values Politicans do: he has attempted to white-wash the past while getting rich on corporatism and brutally enforcing his country. He is afraid of bad press, freedom, and pre-marital sex, but if he's a true Conservative Traditional Values Politician he is right now engaging in sex-tourism in a midwest-America bathroom stall – while signing away resource rights to a multinational corporation that promises to subsidize his police force. But, hey, 'police are heroes' so maybe this story should be kept on the backburner awhile.

When there are reports in the West, they are brief and vague. Nobody wants to say 'too much', it seems. It is almost as if censorship in Turkey has spread into North America. Imagine how crazy that would be. What would it mean about North American and Western media if they kept silent about the abuses, threats, and brutality Erdogan has caused in his decade-plus of rule? But then, this isn't the first time mass media have been slow on the uptake. In Turkey itself is the only case of 'true' censorship, wherein television news reports completely ignore the protests. For the rest: enjoy your scraps of information while 'fair and balanced' reporters and organizations figure out their shit.

What if spurned environmentalists could start similar movements in the West? There are certainly abuses of power, and huge problems with the establishment that will not recede peacefully, but instead worsen every year. I bet you that profits would win at the end of the day, protestors or not. Or, worse: another OWS. What matters about Turkey is the theme: if the fight is lost there then the 21st century will look grimmer for the anti-corporatist and brighter for the career politician and the politician's masters (be they religious or business). That's probably why the Western Media is so mum about this story: they already know the answer. Plus it's Shark Week and tornado season has begun.

Of course reporting will open up when censorship is broken, or a reliable narrative can be applied to the story that will not alienate Turkish political elites, or when the story is over. It's not about a park, and it's not the fault of protestors: the Gezi Park protests are ultimately about resisting authoritarianism. The actions of Turkish police have proven it. At this point a few in-depth reports have probably been published. My sympathies absolutely lie with the protestors, and I wish them victory, because if they win, Turkey will be that much better for it.

User Comment Rodeo: Multiple Choice City

The UCR Mk.II picked up a hugely lucrative article about a social studies professor who forced her entire second year sociology class into taking a geography pop quiz. Just a purely innocent decision which had no loaded stakes, made by a disinterested, scientific-minded professor with no agenda up her sleeve – forced on a classroom of modern students. Said class failed dismally at accurately labeling countries, provinces, capitols, and even broad geographical regions. The UCR Mk.II almost crashed analyzing the over 200 comments. The irony sensor burned out too many times, and I had to deactivate it lest I ran out of spares.

It seemed to me (and still seems to me) a monstrous project, but I will gladly take it on. There is nothing more entertaining than watching idiots go at their bogeys, and watching the poor moderates waste their time. What's really important, in the end, is that everyone tends to just have fun. So kick back, get a stiff drink, forget how old or young you are, and indulge in some senseless ageism. And remember: more than 200 hundred comments resulted from poor test scores about an unrelated subject in what is a small sample of post-secondary students. This is, in more ways than one, an example of why the west is withering and how the internet is making it worse (or making it appear worse). Don't get offended, let's go on a rodeo:

The comments flew in fast and heavy. Reading them almost caved-in my sense of hope. It was brutal. I missed some doozies, no doubt, but there is never time to think when it comes to a User Comment Rodeo. There is only action. There is only the lassoing of choice screengrabs, and hoping they turn out to be priceless. I warn ye who would read this: this is going to be lengthy and uncomfortable, and the levels of ageism, ignorance, and bigotry unveiled herein will drive you into hysteria. If you had any faith, in the young or old, turn back now. The world needs your optimism more than ever. As for me: I don't care, I'm not even paid to do this. Maybe I'll get a shot or two in.

You know what's kind of depressing? You don't? I – Ah, fuck it. I prefer cuss-words anyway, since they make a solid point, frighten puritans and squares, and require almost no intelligence to be used effectively. The internet can still educate. It can also mislead, trivialize, infantilize, and stupefy. Reader, mark well the words of these and following User Comments. Note the vast problems they bring up, and their generally piss-poor sentence construction. Ah, the familiar smells of lazy rhetoric and half-baked idiocy. Is this crisis in education new? Is this a beautiful moment in our collective existence? Will the bleating objections of the masses lead to a new era of mental rigor?

These were the 'upvotes' in reddit-speak (RIP Swartz, I never knew ye, but you deserved better). These were the king comments. These were choice, juicy, apropos, and insightful beyond all the rest. Observe the beautiful spectre of ageism rising from the rabble. One can hardly blame students who are prejudged en masse as morons, merely for existing in a troubled and complex era and for their casual use of advanced electronic devices. It seems as if everyone has given up on them. Everyone except for the oilsands, that is – and when one is scientifically illiterate, one eats up greenwashing with both hands, and feels great about it. The modern explosion of ideologues is due to lack of mental rigor, but if education was so impeccable in the 50's, 60's, and 70's then why are so many middle-aged people so insufferable in their harmful, hateful, and ignorant opinions – why are they so vulnerable to fast-food politics, misinformation, and ideology? Look what they threw away to live comfortably. It's cute, because the coming generations get to live in not only mental, but also economical, physical, and environmental squalor. No wonder they don't give a fuck.

That Time of The Year, Pt.2 : Based on a True Story

In 2011 this rule held true: if it was December there were a lot of movies coming out 'based on true stories'. I feel like 'based on a true story' is the sort of phrase that deserves to always be put in quotes. It stands out. I remember going to a theater and seeing two or three 'based on a true story' movies. Could be my memory is destroyed. You can check for yourself in many ways, I'm sure, but I will provide one.

I guess seeing a fabulous movie with roots in the mundane, grimy, desperate reality of life is a heart-warming thing. It's not terrible. You can't simply hate the story for being insipid or unbelievable. However, you can throw shovelfuls of shit onto the screenplay, script, and performances. I'm not one for 'true story' movies myself, but I can see the appeal. Recent Denzel vehicle Flight was also allegedly 'based on a true story' in the trailers. There is some discussion about that. Again, maybe my memory is shot.

It seems to me, after some reflection, that the winter months and the final weeks of autumn is the key season for 'based on a true story' movies. I guess film-goers need their hearts warmed, too. I will include in this discussion biographical films. I saw The Master this year in an independent cinema in late November. It fits the bill, even though the movie was released much earlier. I just wanted to say that I watched a movie. Was it good? Hell yeah it was interesting. I've never seen such a good, unbiased movie about Scientology in my life. The word 'Scientology' isn't even used once, as far as I know, in the movie. That's brilliant. L. Ron Hubbard is renamed. It's a work of art. Drags a bit. Philip Seymour Hoffman is in it and he's a masterful actor who positively keeps the damn thing going.

But I digress. Take one of recent history's most successful and critically lauded Milk, which was released on November 26, 2008. It was a movie 'based on a true story' and some might have called it a 'biographical film' or even a 'biopic'. I'm more or less an idiot, but even I can see this trend. I won't go ahead and say December is peak month for this type of movie, but it is certainly roughly in the middle. It is the median month for 'based on true story' entertainment.

Though, following this line of reasoning, every war movie ever made is 'based on a true story' and most crime movies as well. Then, let's get existential and very post-modern critical and just say that every movie and every book and every narrative ever is 'based on a true story'. Most music is probably born along those lines. Everything creative is partly 'based on a true story'. This is problematic, because I mean a specific type of feel-good, heartwarming, nonthreatening, almost unconscious type of movie. The type that would star Sandra Bullock and a minority actor, and you'd find your girlfriend watching it late one evening – absorbed, transported, and entirely quiet. Why can't she be like that when Ted is playing?

Except that movie with Sandra Bullock is not really so unconscious. I feel bad for considering it problematic. It's probably legitimately progressive, and probably has integrity as a work of art, as a consumer product, and as a social statement. I don't actually know, though. I never saw it. All I know is that, apparently, it was based on a true story, and according to that logic probably came out between mid-November and late-February.