No, but rather, who makes the money from pressing the record button?
Thank you. Wonderful response!
On Wed, 22 Jul 2020 18:40:27 -0400, Gillis, Leo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Sammy Jones stated:
>"I have to ask again, why are we even in this position?
>What does any of this have to do with recorded sound?"
>I would reply that the entire history of recorded sound hinges on one fact:
>who gets to press the record button?
>Leo J. Gillis
>*Head of Special Collections and Archives*
>Interlochen Center for the Arts
>E: [log in to unmask]
>W: interlochen.org <http://www.interlochen.org/>
>Arts Camp | Arts Academy | College of Creative Arts | Presents | Public
>On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 6:04 PM Sarah Bryan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> I don't read Sammy's concerns about maintaining an appearance of
>> journalistic objectivity as racist. That seems to me to be the "you're
>> either with us or you're against us" attitude that has sadly characterized
>> public discourse from both sides of the political spectrum for the last
>> generation. What's more, if I'm not mistaken, he works for a journalistic
>> entity that has unabashedly -- and in my opinion, rightly -- made clear
>> that its own organizational values are anti-racism, anti-police brutality,
>> and anti-Trump. It's clearly important to him that his personal beliefs
>> remain separate from the conversation, and I think his wording shows
>> caution and hewing to professional objectivity, and not anything
>> approaching racism; we can't extrapolate anything about his own beliefs
>> from what he wrote.
>> However, I do disagree with Sammy that the topics that ARSC has made public
>> statements about are "political," or that because they're the subject of
>> current lawsuits it's inappropriate to prejudge them in the public arena.
>> Issues like systemic racism and police brutality transcend the label of
>> "political." They're issues of human rights, which is a realm of clear
>> right and wrong, even if it takes months and years (generations, centuries)
>> for the government and courts to reflect what's right in the laws. And as
>> we all know from the legal history of the United States, legality is not
>> always a competent arbiter of right and wrong. (Dred Scott, anyone?) Just
>> because George Floyd's murder is the subject of pending legal action
>> doesn't mean that the morality of what happened to him is in question; we
>> saw what happened, we can all judge for ourselves, and when evil is that
>> obvious, we don't need to wait for a legal decision in order to make our
>> positions as citizens known.
>> Organizations like ARSC are fully within their rights -- and, I believe,
>> within the bounds of what *is* right -- to speak out in favor of human
>> rights, if their leadership decides to do so. The organization is not
>> obligated to maintain an appearance of objectivity because one or more
>> members work in fields in which absolute neutrality is a virtue. It's the
>> individual members' obligation to decide whether the organization speaks
>> for them, and if they find that it doesn't, what they should do about it.
>> And remember, ARSC takes public stances on issues of copyright law; if
>> copyright law is important enough that we take a side, regardless of
>> pending litigation, surely human rights is too? And for those who think
>> that racism and the proverbial arc of justice have nothing to do with
>> recorded sound history...good lord. A look at just about any issue of the
>> ARSC Journal should make clear that that argument is ridiculous.
>> Sarah Bryan
>> Sarah Bryan