Washington Square Park hosts a myriad of interesting characters: street performers, vendors selling questionable substances and political interviewers looking to exploit eager and naive college students for content. In June, an older man approached my friend group with a comically large microphone. He began to ask controversial and pointed questions, which eventually turned into a heated debate — with me at the center — regarding abortion and women’s reproductive healthcare. It was clear he was searching for the perfect target to film, debate and eventually post on social media. The insidious nature of this short-form video content is evident: It’s both a dishonest and intellectually ineffective way to exploit unknowing students who seek to engage in political discourse.
Rather than promote open dialogue and broadcast diverse opinions, the producers — more accurately described as instigators — approach unsuspecting bystanders with a carefully drafted script. They probe their interviewees with propaganda, misinformation and unsubstantiated evidence in an effort to forcefully impose an ideology rather than have an earnest conversation. This is not a debate. This power imbalance, combined with the fact that they are often fast-paced speakers and utilize ad hominem attacks, creates a distracting and hostile environment where it’s intentionally challenging to process information and prepare a response.
In my case, the man’s abrasive nature and pointed questions created an aggressive environment. It was hard to process his words and even harder to articulate a clear argument. At one point, he claimed that fetuses experience neural signals at nine weeks — I asked what evidence he was citing. Studies have shown that the human fetus cannot develop a capacity for pain until after 24 to 25 weeks in utero. His response, “your ignorance is not proof that I’m wrong,” was both an insult to my intelligence and character, and failed to actually respond to a legitimate question.
By name-calling and shifting the focus of the debate towards my intellect, his belittlement distracted me from the topic at hand and elicited an emotional response out of me: perfect for his desire to create a viral piece of media.
The virality of this type of content is undeniable. Lengthy interviews often include numerous flashy moments which then get cut for shorter-form content. With the population’s ever-shrinking attention span, this practice becomes essential for engagement. These provocative moments become the most watched parts of these debates but fail to showcase the nuances of the issues in question. Truly effective debate requires honest curiosity and skepticism. It’s not about always being right or crushing the other side in complete defeat, but it demands the ability to question. Truth exists within the in-between and grey areas. It doesn’t lie on one side of the aisle over the other, and it requires us to relinquish our egos, admit when we’re wrong and actively listen to those we disagree with.
For NYU students, the most effective way to reduce this form of content is to disengage with it. The local New York City government can’t ban or censor those who attempt to interview students in Washington Square Park, given it’s a public space. However, choosing not to engage only fuels the metaphorical fire. It disincentivizes the aggressive tactics that drive engagement, and encourages these political commentators and interviewers to find a different and more effective route in encouraging man-on-the-street discourse.
Disengagement also entails refusing to share, like or continue to circulate media that exploits fellow peers. If students feel the need to engage, then remaining unemotional and as non-reactive as possible allows them to maintain a higher ground, reducing their chances of being used as content and potentially misconstrued.
Ultimately, rhetoric and speech have immense power, and engaging with inflammatory statements or problematic ideas can risk furthering dangerous propaganda. For NYU students, ignoring this type of media diminishes its power, allowing accurate and productive conversation to begin — both on the university’s campus and in the public square.
WSN’s Opinion section strives to publish ideas worth discussing. The views presented in the Opinion section are solely the views of the writer.
Contact Grace Carmody at [email protected].
