Richard Kahn and Doug Kellner evaluate the new era of online activism in the article New media and internet activism. They discuss the early activities of the “battle for Seattle” and several protests surrounding the war in Iraq from groups such as MoveOn and ANSWER. Web based activism has really hit its stride since the turn of the century. Blogging has allowed anyone with internet access to become a contributing reporter. Kahn and Kellner note bloggers are able to post pictures, text, audiom and video on the fly from PDA devices and cell phones (93). With the age of the article (2004) it feels to lack emphasis on the speed technology moves today. Since these publication advancements in society such as Twitter, smart phones, tablets, and Facebook have exploded to everyday use. Blogging and activism took a drastic increase in speed.
While I agree several avenues for democracy, news, and facts arose with the new blogging and reporting environment, the web is also rampant with misinformation. Take for example everyone’s favorite activist, blogger, and Right wing rabble-rouser Andrew Brietbart. In 2010 on his website he reported a video of Department of Agriculture agent Shirley Sherrod making seemingly racist comments (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/19/clip-shows-usda-official-admitting-withheld-help-white-farmer/). This created a hailstorm of media coverage. It was reported across the country with Fox-News at the forefront. Within days Ms. Sherrod was forced to resign only for details to later explain Brietbart heavily doctored the video footage (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/us/politics/22sherrod.html?_r=2).
Even though apologies were handed out by nearly everyone involved (except Brietbart who always held the spirit of his video was correct), Sherrod's reputation was permanently tainted and her name tarnished forever.
In another case Brietbart exhibited almost the exact same actions. In 2009 he released a video depicting the Government agency ACORN as promoting prostitution and fraud. Thus massive investigations were held by Massachusetts, California, and New York which concluded the ACORN workers committed no criminal activity and the videos were heavily edited to mislead and shape the material out of context. Any effort to critically analyze ACORN's credibility was derailed by the initial video and they were completely disbanded by 2010 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-atlas/acorn-vindicated-of-wrong_b_612265.html?page=3&show_comment_id=50563828).
While the ethics, motives, and validity of these stories can be heavily questioned, we've also witness a number of positive online causes. For example the Trayvon Martin case, after being entirely dismissed by local police, now has life in large part due to online activism. This summarizes the cause and the petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/prosecute-the-killer-of-our-son-17-year-old-trayvon-martin. Even people who believe Zimmerman is being unfairly persecuted by public opinion mostly agree the case should be invested more thoroughly than the previous attempt. A mother, whose son was tragically slain in public, now has a chance at truth for her son's final moments. Whether Zimmerman is guilty or innocent, right or wrong, just or unjust, further insight and investigation isn't much for a grieving mother to ask.
So I guess this brings me to my question, is online activism good for society? My guess, it is good at times, awful and others, and the “truth” to any situation will float somewhere in a myriad of online opinions.
~Tim Nettrouer
Obviously this article predates Facebook and Twitter so its statements about the "killer application" of email and the power of blogging seem a little stale.... I think the authors' point about the harnessing of new media for new forms of political activism is a salient one. However, as we have read in previous texts, it's not always the technology that accounts for political activism. Sometimes changes in the culture drive changes in technology and sometimes it's the opposite. We have certainly witnessed in our lifetime the birth of an information age and a digital revolution of sorts. I'm just not sure it's created a political revolution. For sure, information technologies have changed the way we live, work and play. But I'm not convinced they has fundamentally changed the way we conduct democracy - vote, elect leaders, pass laws, etc. If anything, new media like the Internet can help create a groundswell of support or opposition to people, agencies and ideas with a speed and reach that was unimaginable before. Like Tim said, that kind of power can have both good and bad consequences depending on how it's used.
ReplyDeleteWhen on-line news is reported in an exaggerated, out-of-context, or even totally manufactured manner(e.g. Brietbart)others do have agency to expose it as so. This de facto system of checks and balances should help keep internet journalism relatively honest. Other than that, I would say approach every on-line news source as suspect and decide for yourselves in regard to their credibility.
ReplyDeleteI'm a little late on this one, and believe I must have skipped over it. I agree with Matt in saying that we must decide for ourselves the truth behind the stories and videos found on the internet. It is up to us to discover what is credible and what is false information. I think there are too many people that see something on the internet, and automatically assume it to be true, which is kind of a scary thought. People need to be more aware of what is going on around them, instead of just believing some extremely ridiculous story found on a website. Like Tim mentioned, the Trayvon Martin case united people around the globe. This was all because of the internet. I think that is amazing, and really gives me high hopes in regards to political activism in the digital world. There are always going to be positive as well as negative aspects of the Internet, but maybe in the future we will see more great things happen because of the digital world.
ReplyDeleteI will not argue the strength of online activism because it is obviously a powerful way to spread a message fast and rally support. The thing that worries me about internet activism is its endurance or 'lasting effect'. The intensity at which the information flows means that we are seeing numerous articles, stories, etc - every day. When people rally around a cause that begins on the internet, I believe it is difficult to keep those people engaged and motivated as the cause moves forward. I am not saying it can't be done but it seems like a lot of these protests or call to action fizzle out when a new message arises and everyone jumps ship for the new cause. Again, this does not happen with every activist movement but it is a problem that exists. The internet has a nature of anonymity which makes it easy for people to detach at no cost to themselves.
ReplyDelete