Globalization has had a huge effect on the spread of communications, but does it always play fair? A recent discussion in class revolved around the role of globalization and communications, and its effects on international politics, and social change.
A report from U.S. Institute of Peace, named Blogs and Bullets, reported that during the Arab Spring uprising 75% of links about the protests were accessed outside of the Arab world. This outside attention helped fuel the global conversation about the revolutions. While uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya were followed closely other like in Bahrain are largely ignored. Many site U.S. interest in squashing the revolution as a possible reason, but how do these trends in global conversations start? Is it possible to incite a global conversation or is it organic.
The Democratic Republic of Congo, has faced years of war over the conflict material (cassiterite, wolframite, coltan,and gold) used in the production of cell phones and lap-tops. Rape has become a tool of war, it is reported that 4 Congolese women are raped every 5 minutes. Many advocacy groups have tried to draw attention to the plight of these women, but it has not garnered a lot of media attention.
A U.K. group Save the Congo, in an attempt to spark media attention created a film The Unwatchable, a short film portraying violence that occurs daily in Democratic Republic of Congo, but transposes the setting to rural England. The film depicts an attack on a British family by militants; in the film members of the family are raped, dismembered, and killed. It is disturbing, and truly unwatchable.
I can appreciate the social commentary, implying that the media largely ignores issues in Africa, while this behavior would never be tolerated in a Western country. I get it, but somehow I know this film misses the mark. Sensationalizing the violence in the Congo is doing injustice to the complex issues surrounding the conflict. Inducing fear into an audience will not create sustainable change. There should be a middle ground when trying to spark change, or garnering media attention.
The Internet has changed the conversation about globalization. The popularity and discussion of social issues on a global scale has an enormous impact. No wonder these organizations are desperately trying to capitalize on it, but there has to be room for actual discourse and activism, not just a sensationalized scare tactic approach.
My question is, if 75% of the tweets during the Arab Spring were from outside of the countries involved, then can you even consider a global conversation? I think we talked about it a little in class, but if most of the tweets coming out of the Arab Spring were coming from other countries, chances are those are the people who were communicating with each other. And the slim 25% in the effected countries were more likely to be conversing with each other rather than twitter users in other countries. So regardless of whether it was organic or incited, can it even be considered a global conversation?
ReplyDeleteI think it's hard to know exactly. Egyptians used similar hashtags as Tunisians which helped ignite the protests. Looking at the timeline of the Egyptian revolution to the Tunisian one its easy to see that as relative. I count that as a global conversation--all the other uprisings that followed after Tunisia I think can be counted as a global conversation.
ReplyDeleteI think there is also something to said about media attention. The buzz that is created by twitter or facebook can draw media attention to an issue, the more the media covers the more information is spread. True there may be many non-facebook users in these countries but if the media starts reporting on an issue because of an initial buzz created via social media a wider population is reached regardless whether it was within the country or outside than I count that as a global conversation.
There is also a diaspora population to consider, many who have family or friends in these countries that are reporting first had via social media what is happening, I count that as a global conversation.
But like I said it's hard to tell, analyst are sifting through all this data and social scientist are trying to interpret it as fast as they can, who knows what new conclusions they will find.
I just wanted to include this link to a New Yorker article I just read for Global Internet Policy that slightly relates to twitter and the revolutions it has supposedly incited.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all
Yep I did the reading, but look at the date when this was written October 2010--4 months before Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria, etc. This article is really about slacktivism, and I think proven wrong by the events that took place after its publication.
ReplyDeleteLet's be clear here I don't think that twitter or facebook incited a revolution, I think it was a tool used by the people. Egypt had organizations that were protesting for years before the events in January, I believe they have all qualities this article talks about when talking about Civil Rights protestors--but the domino effect of Tunisia had can be contributed to a global conversation.
Also groups like Morningside Analytics statistics are translating in native languages, so I believe more accurate.