The "human microphone" creeps me out

Submitted by wdkaye on

Forums: 

Hey gang.  I'm  a big fan of O:LA.  I haven't been able to actually camp out there but I've attended a couple of GAs and think this movement has serious potential.

But I have misgivings on one thing - this "human microphone" technique gives me the willies.  You can justify it however you want, but from an outside perspective, you have a crowd of people repeating, word for word, whatever a speaker is saying.  If that speaker is talking total nonsense the people repeat that nonsense - in doing so they are implicity accepting their argument.

Sorry, I know that "mic check" has become cool and a hallmark characteristic of the GA, but I don't like it; it just seems like an indoctrination technique to me.

I wanted to start a discussion on this.  What does everyone else think?

Cheers,  -Warren

creepy

Submitted by jeni christensen on

I totally understand why but unfortunately I totally agree.  It reminds me of, I don't know, something cult like.  Or like saying a vow.  I don't know if anything can be done or should, but yeah, the first time I heard it especially... Creeeeepy.  But Thank You to everyone who is staying the course down there.

It creeped me out for about a

Submitted by PC on

It creeped me out for about a minute as well...until I figured out what it was for. It took...well, as I said, about a literal minute. Actually more like a half a minute. So, estimating conservatively, it shouldn't take anybody with a higher than room temperature IQ more than sixty seconds to figure out that s/he is witnessing a technique for deliberating outdoors without a sound system, rather than a cult meeting.

Now, it is legitimate to wonder whether the average TV viewer, seeing the use of the people's mic for something other than deliberation (e.g., "mic checking" an awards show or campaign rally) will find it cultish and weird. I guess it depends on how well they know the basic facts of the Occupy movement.

Mahayana's picture

Yup, it creeps me out too. I

Submitted by Mahayana on

Yup, it creeps me out too. I don't see the point in it. Plus, think of how much time is wasted in repeating everything that gets said. Spirit fingers are weird too. I just can't get into that.

The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves - in their separate, and individual capacities. -Abe

Fex's picture

Creeps me out too

Submitted by Fex on

I understand why it was started, Occupy Wall Street in New York City was not allowed PA systems or megaphones . . . using it for any other reason rather than to be heard by everyone makes it strangely cultish. The only reason to use the "human microphone" is when there is no other way for a speaker to be heard among a crowd. That's it. Unless yer trying to brainwash people into group think zombie-ism, which we're not. Do not use the human mic unless it's necessary. I almost left OLA the first GA I attended near 2 months ago because they were human micing when they had a mic and amplifier right f*cking there. I am not here to be rallied to, I am not here for a prep talk. I am here to have everyone's voice heard and to protest, and NYC Occupy would've been happy to use a PA system if legally allowed ffs.

 

"Word following word- I wrought words. Deed following deed, I wrought deeds." - The Havamal

Acoustics

Submitted by wdkaye on

If amplification is really the issue, why don't we use simple acoustic reflectors to direct our sound.  We could use non-electric megaphones or parabolic reflectors to simply focus the sound in the direction of the crowd.

I try to repeat whether I

Submitted by PC on

I try to repeat whether I agree or disagree.  To do otherwise actually WOULD be creepy and cultish.  My job as a member of the crowd who can hear the speaker is to amplify her or his words so that others farther away, or whose hearing is less acute than mine, can hear.  It's not my job to decide which viewpoints those others should hear.  I'd be lying if I said I was 100% faithful to this principle, but there you go.

The only time I deliberately don't repeat is when someone is clearly rambling or ranting, or otherwise speaking out of process.

I love it...

Submitted by tovangar2 on

...when we had amplification we had a real problem of people grabbing & hogging the mic. As kharnal explains above, that's impossible with the human mic. I also like that speakers chose their words more carefully & seem to keep their announcements shorter & more to the point with the human mic, allowing one to enjoy the GA's much more. It's the appropriate technology & can be used during actions, etc., anywhere really. I still get chills when I hear it used elsewhere, especially in other languages. I see it as a community builder.

Give it another chance guys.

 

Para Todos Todo, Para Nosotros Nada: For Everyone, Everything, For Us, Nothing

OccupyNews.net's picture

Explaining the Human microphone.

Submitted by OccupyNews.net on

Great Topic, great responses as well. lol, I felt as if I was reading my own article about this topic that I recently wrote.

http://myalexlogic.blogspot.com/2011/11/explaining-human-microphone-used...

www.occupynews.net, www.swarmthebanks.com, www.wallstreetchange.com, www.bankprotests.com, www.dailyprotest.com, www.parallelforeclosure.com, www.credit-protector.blogspot.com, www.myalexlogic.com, www.bloggersagainstchasebank.com,

Last night, our sign language

Submitted by kharnal on

Last night, our sign language interpreter expressed several times that if the people's mic is not used it is difficult for him to keep up with the speakers.

The speed of the human mic is actually the speed that a speaker should speak at. Conversational speech is WAY too fast for a large group of people. Non-professional speakers using the people's mic I believe are much closer to the speed, tone, and concise wording of an experienced speaker.

Evan Kashinsky - Keepin' It Real #77

people's mike more positive than negative imo

Submitted by Lee on

Not only does it help people to hear what's being said, but possibly even more important, it helps people listen carefully to what is said and consider it. Otherwise, I have to admit, my attention can wander. I repeat most of what I hear, but there are times when I disagree so strongly that I just can't repeat it, and really, everyone has that option. I don't feel as though repeating it makes people believe it at all; I can understand that it may sound like brainwashing but since we are repeating totally contrary views back and forth all the time, I don't think it is brainwashing--I think it means we understand better all the views voiced.  Although it drags the meetings out, there may be more of a plus to each person being heard thoroughly.

Leone

Pages