"The Battle in Seattle" analysis

1) What do the authors see as most significant about the events of the "Battle in Seattle"?

-The protestors in Seattle did not want violence to occur, but throughout the protest, violence occurred. Because the violence happened, the media took attention to it. The organizers were disappointed because their original message was not going to be publicized.
- The protestors protested against major corporations but ironically, they had to use media companies such as CNN to spread their message. The use of the public screen was a part of their protest and the protestors ridiculed the media.

2) They were using other examples of protests that used violence and explained that they were not nearly as effective. The following year, the same protestors went to Washington D.C. and the police made arrests before the protests began. As a result, the media coverage was no where near the same as the battle in Seattle.

3) Our group  in a way agreed with the evidence used by the authors. Throughout history, only extremes receive large amounts of attention. There are only a small amount of protests that received national attention through only peaceful acts.

4. One, to receive attention from others, the protests needed to become violent. That explains why the battle in Seattle went to the public screen. Also, the public screen can be effectively used for protest. The point is to find out whether the public screen is a benefit or a negative concept within our society.

5. Discussing the constraints of the public screen towards the end of the article was confusing and made the argument for the public screen less positive.