Social media and advanced technology has indeed created an
environment where individuals and networks can connect across geographical boundaries.
Facebook, Twitter and YouTube have assisted in bringing international attention
to global atrocities and horrendous acts of violence. However, in our praise of
the Internet, we must be sure not to dismiss the painful years of blood, sweat,
and tears that made the Social Media Revolution so powerful during the Arab
Spring. The Arab Spring did not happen because social media amplified the voice
of bloggers and journalists. Instead, the Arab Spring gained international
exposure because bloggers and journalist in the Arab world had been preparing
for that moment and social media just served as a tool to leverage their voice.
The uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia were the
result of activism and not slacktivism. Slacktivism is when social media is
used alone with hopes of effectuation change. Activism consists of on- the
ground action that has been in the works for a significant period of time.
Social media in the service of PD offers a wide array of
benefits. However, before assigning a social media solution to every situation,
context must be considered. The use of social media can be beneficial depending
on the particular country. The reason why social media worked in Tunisia is
because citizens spent over a decade building online networks and
relationships. Social media outreach did not fair too well in Syria because
internet penetration is not as high and anti- opposition is strong. Internet
freedom plays a huge role in measuring how well social media is compatible to
the work of PD. In order to strengthen
the work of PD, it would be beneficial to work diligently toward the goal of
making sure that citizens have the right to express themselves freely through
digital networks. Journalist, bloggers
and social activists already have the tools to effectuate change. Social media
would only provide a mechanism to give them a voice where they have traditionally
been silenced.
I know I am not supposed to just respond that I like this post. But, I do. You are saying exactly what I was trying to say in my post, though vastly more articulate than myself. Social media is only one tool, and in public diplomacy it is sometimes not the appropriate tool to use. As you say, context must be a consideration. So I am going to ask you a question instead of just praising you for agreeing with me. Do you think that, if journalist and traditional media sources were free to report on the atrocities committed by the various regimes, that new social media networks would still be a concern today? The impact, as I see it, of social media in the Arab Spring was that internationally communities had constant updates of what was going on at the ground level. So, if their press were able to reach outside, where would social media stand?
ReplyDeleteHi, Dominique;
DeleteThanks for the feeback and discussion. I agree that if journalists and traditional media sources had the freedom to report atrocities commited, the role of social media would change drastically. In fact, I think social media would be used to a greater extent and leveraged even more effectively. These traditional media outlets would then have the opportunity to amplify their voice to the international audience without certain restrictions. However, this freedom will produce consequences and certain regimes may change their policy to completely restrict traditional media from gaining access to sources and important docuements. Overall, social media would only amplify the voice of traditional media instead of replacing the medium.