Middlesex Marquee (again)

[jd-science.livejournal.com]

I just sent the following to the Middlesex Bank. I also e-mailed Rebekah about it. Does anyone else ever notice this trend on the marquee but me? It's annoying and depressing.


Hello-

I sent a comment on June 27, 2006 about the scrolling marquee outside your bank. I have not yet heard a response.

This is what I sent you then:

"I live in the Davis Square area and wanted to express my unhappiness with the new scrolling marquee above your bank. This weekend I was sitting in the square with some friends, and within five minutes we saw the words "death" and "kill" repeated several times. This does not seem appropriate at all for large, bright broadcasting in the middle of Davis Square.

I realize that the marquee was just scrolling news headlines, but I don't believe that news headlines - particularly those types of headlines - are really that important to building a truly informed public and in fact contribute to a destructive social atmosphere. If the marquee must be there (which I don't think it great, but I understand you've probably put a lot of money into it), I'd prefer it just to scroll the time, temperature, and maybe sports scores. And please nothing about death, killing, children being bombed, and so forth. We can get enough of that everywhere else."

Today, August 3, I was eating lunch in the square at around 1 pm, and one right after the other, I saw the following headlines scroll across, multiple times:

Iranian Woman Awaits Death By Stoning
New Surgical Procedure for Incontinence
Woman Afraid of Height Dies in Plane Crash
Israeli Bombing Kills 7
Welcome to Davis Square

There was another headline after the stoning that had something to do with death, but I don't exactly remember what it said.

This hardly seems appropriate to be displayed in large orange letters in the middle of Davis Square. Death, destruction, ridiculousness, and hey! Welcome to Davis!

I went into the bank to ask who to talk to about my issues with the sign, and the tellers told me Mr. Smoliss (?) was in charge. I asked if I could talk to him, and they said, “Well, his office is upstairs.” I wasn’t sure if I was supposed to just walk up and there and knock on the door, so I am writing via the official channel on your website.

At the recent Davis Square Task Force meeting, it was noted that the sign is only allowed, by law, to display the time, temperature, and public service announcements. The president also said he wanted the sign to promote community events and activities.

(for notes, see http://community.livejournal.com/davis_square/565301.html)

It hardly seems that what I saw today is in line with any of this. In addition, after all these useless, dramatic headlines were several about mergers and business acquisitions, also not of local community interest.

I would appreciate a response from you about this problem.

Comments

[jd-science.livejournal.com]

I actually think that you, komos, have a good point about censorship. it’s funny, i was wondering why i felt like a grumpy old-timer as I was writing those comments to the bank. I guess it’s because I’m becoming the cranky neighborhood watchdog / busybody (i am notorious for calling The Authorities when i notice things out of whack in the neighborhood, e.g. a leaking transformer, strong smells of gas, beeping smoke alarms).

Regarding claims of censorship, though, the term obviously can be and is interpreted widely. i was just thinking the other day about the relationships between personal opinion, public opinion, morals, and laws. They all blend into and inform each other in such a messy and interesting way. When does a complaint about something become a demand for censorship? How strongly does each party need to feel in order for a situation to change from discussion to disagreement to conflict to oppression?

I’d like to think we’re still in stage 1. Taking into consideration what everyone has written, I think now that my objection is not, at its heart, to the content of the sign, though I can see how my written complaint(s) lead to that conclusion. Your comments have made me realize that to be more clear about my position, I should state what it is that I would like to have happen.

I would like to talk to someone from the bank about why the sign says what it does. Is it just an automatic AP-type feed that whoever's in charge of the content threw on there just because they wanted something that was automatically updated? Does it reflect any personal filtering or bias? If so, what is the relationship between the filter and the perceived needs of the community? Does the filter take into consideration the fact that anything displayed is very big, very bright, and very orange?

I want to know that someone has thought about this, and I want to know what it was that person was thinking. The emotional motivation behind my comments, then, was something like, “Do you even know what you’re doing? If not, please think about it. I really think this is a bad idea. Here’s why. Taking that into consideration, do you still really think this is a good idea?” (An added emotional motivation for the second note to them was that I was annoyed that no one ever responded to me).

Therefore, what I really want is not censorship, but to know 1) if someone is really insisting for a thought-out reason that these headlines should be broadcast, and 2) if someone is, what that reason may be. If it turns out that this person truly believes that these headlines are useful, then we’ll have a slightly different discussion on our hands.

In that case, I believe that the final solution lies in zoning laws. As xuth mentioned, good zoning laws don’t restrict content of expression, but rather the intrusiveness of the medium by which one expresses oneself. Since the relevant Somerville law is backwards, the final solution probably doesn’t lie in *our* zoning law. But the reasoning behind such laws still stands. So while I do personally object to the content of the messages, I’d say the validity of my complaint as more than just being a pushy grump lies in the intrusiveness of the sign. With great (illuminatory) power comes great responsibility, and all that...

[komos.livejournal.com]

I have no issue with the idea that the marquee is an eyesore. On the other hand, the claim that news headlines make it more offensive or (as was suggested by numbersnletters) that the headlines constitute a step towards "social desolation" goes well beyond what's necessary to demonstrate that point. It is likely a feed, and I'd anticipate that the bank would take the position that the headlines are provided as a public service. Essentially, without violation of the city ordinance, the content of the marquee is largely irrelevant to the central idea - that the marquee is an eyesore - and may actually detract from the argument.