"Does the manner in which Invisible Children selectively brands this conflict make the people of northern Uganda more or less visible?" Good question.

We got together for our weekly meeting this past Friday and tried to narrow down our central question and thesis. As Dr. Baines suggested, what we needed was some sort of thread to tie the five pillars of our project - Invisible Children's social media, its movies, its mainstream media coverage, its campaigns and website, and its use of "people media" - together. Invisible Children's brand is, after all, defined by each of these components.

After about an hour's worth of discussion, we hashed out the following all-encompassing question:

Using media, Invisible Children has branded the people and conflict of northern Uganda. This brand is a political tool, and media is their marketing strategy. Invisible Children uses media to encourage young Americans to demonstrate in support of their brothers and sisters in northern Uganda, and to inspire national and international political action to bring Joseph Kony to justice. Does the manner in which Invisible Children selectively brands this conflict make the people of northern Uganda more or less visible?

And what of our grand thesis? Well, to avoid spoiling the ending, I won't give too much away... What I will say is that all of us are grappling with the pros and cons of essentializing a conflict, and the people of northern Uganda. Branding is all about packaging something so that it sells. In Invisible Children's case, the target audience is American youth. The way that Invisible Children uses various forms of media is a reaction to their target generation's connection to Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Google, etc. This is the generation that Invisible Children hopes will grow up to eventually end the conflict in northern Uganda, and to bring Joseph Kony to justice.

Is there a danger in essentializing if one's intentions are good and true?