 |
 |
Leo, No, but rather, who makes the money from pressing the record button? Sarah, Thank you. Wonderful response! Jeff 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] >P: 231-276-4384 >W: interlochen.org <http://www.interlochen.org/> > >Arts Camp | Arts Academy | College of Creative Arts | Presents | Public >Radio > > >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 >> http://sarah-bryan.com >> www.ncfolk.org >> www.oldtimeherald.org >> ************************** >>