I was recently reading an article printed by VICE UK , about a journalist named Marcus Barnes who was recently tried in England for "encouraging the commission of criminal damage," due to his magazine called Keep the Faith, frequently containing articles about graffiti artists and their recent art work.
The thing that amazed me about the article was that he wasn't tried for hiding information about graffiti artists, but simply for writing about and "encouraging" it's existence. This was something that I had never heard of before. How could someone be in a criminal trial for simply acknowledging and appreciating the existence of something? Isn't everyone entitled to their opinions?
Barnes during the interview describes the thousands of dollars that his court case cost not only him personally, but the taxpayer as well. He was eventually found not guilty of course. The whole idea of this case is absolutely absurd to me personally, but it raised some serious questions.
What kinds of resources are we wasting on restricting the independent press? Barnes told VICE in his interview that his court case cost the taxpayer 28 thousand pounds ( 39 thousand dollars ) every day to keep this court case open. That's a ridiculous amount of resources that could be dedicated to improving healthcare or infrastructure or something useful that everyone can benefit from, instead of attacking an independent journalist that is writing about unpopular artwork. In my opinion anyway.
But the part of this interview that really got my brain churning was the section where Barnes clarifies the difference between "street art" and "graffiti". Although these two things seem virtually the same, there is a crucial difference that separates the two. . Street art is commissioned by community boards and home owner committees; a public work that is approved of by the community. Graffiti is what shows up on the wall that hasn't been agreed on, the stuff that gets put up on walls "without their permission".
Are there "street art journalists"? Journalists who publish articles that are agreed upon, acceptable and uncontroversial. As I ask myself this question, it seems clear to me that we might have an epidemic of "street art journalists". Too many journalists working for large conglomerate news corporations, willing to paint pictures of whatever their owners' decide to commission.
What we need are more "graffiti journalists". The journalists who print articles without consent from those in control. Investigating and exposing areas that aren't a part of the "higher-ups" plans. Journalists who work independently to paint their own picture, even if that picture is ugly, or unwanted.
And it seems clear to me that the government is willing to spend the taxpayers dollar in order to keep graffiti and "graffiti journalists" off the streets and away from the eyes and ears of the people.
Which is precisely the reason we need them.
