Robinson discusses an interesting possible outcome of “the
new media environment” in his article, “The CNN effect reconsidered.” One is the possible fragmentation and
reduction of “the potential power of media to influence both policy makers and
publics.” Robinson suggests that more
research be done in this area. In
general, the discourse about the new media, including the internet, satellite
TV and hand-held communication devices seems to be that it will bring more
power to more people and allow the opinions and interests of the non-elite to
be heard and acted on.
Robinson’s suggestion that the new media environment will
disempower media instead of empower is very interesting to consider. The ease of using media to show solidarity
and share your opinion may actually lower the effectiveness of certain campaigns. For example, when a person ‘likes’ a page on
Facebook about a certain political movement they may feel empowered in their
ability to engage in a political ‘act.’
But, are these ‘acts’ really as effective as traditional protests or
calls to action, such as a march, a sit in or writing a letter to your
representative? You could say they are
the new “writing a letter to your representative” And it is true that politicians are paying
great attention to the opinions and thoughts found on Facebook and Tweeter and
spend a great amount of energy controlling and adhering to the information
found in these new social media sources.
However, I personally feel a great disconnect between
‘liking’ a Facebook page or ‘retweeting’ a tweet and the actual changing of a
policy or law. While people may feel engaged,
the actual personal sacrifice and effort put in to these actions do not pack
the same punch as physically standing up to march for something you believe in
or taking the time to discuss a complicated policy with a neighbor.
I see where you are headed, however I think the power of these social networks are greater than discussed above. I do agree that a protest is more effective than a "like" on Facebook. However, I don't know if I agree that a Facebook group or even a tweet is less effective. We need only to look at the Arab Spring to see this. Of course there is question on whether Facebook is really at the heart of some of these revolutions, but it is no question that it was involved. At the very least I think Facebook may accelerate the results of a protest, or the action of a protest. It is easier to find people with the same concern as you and I think that with this increased organization it is also easier to create groups with common goals willing to act on them. I know that the Egyptian children named by their revolutionary parents, Facebook, are hoping that this is true.
I agree with you about the difference between real action and “liking” a Facebook page. We had an amazing guest lecturer recently in my Political Economy class. The lady who was speaking is a long time advocate of the IMF’s improvements in transparency and accountability. Thanks to her efforts, we at least can now read the IMF’s reports explaining why they failed to predict the latest crisis. Before, they were accountable to nobody in civil society, yet they use its money and decide critical questions of global economic sustainability. Anyway, the question was asked during the lecture about her advocacy group's use of media. She conceded the importance of e-mails, fax machines etc., which help her group coordinate its actions better and quicker. But these are just tools for the actual real world action they do by going to the IMF’s meetings, bothering to ask its representatives for interviews, obtaining professional second opinions on IMF “reports,” and in all possible ways attracting attention to the problem. Her work involves a lot of expertise (she has a PhD in Political Science), a lot of energy and dedication, and a lot of networking at real, high-profile events she attends. Elites may be reading what people post on Facebook, but they themselves are not there and definitely prefer to do business face-to-face, or even behind closed doors. So I think that Facebook will be just a self-indulging game in civil society, so far as problems aren’t being addressed in a professional and well-organized manner, but rather just “liked” or “disliked” by way of one click which requires almost no effort.
Julia D.
Sharena,
I'm glad you brought up this topic. I touched on it too in my December 2 post on the "Casually Pepper Spray Everything Cop" meme. I agree with you that "liking" something on Facebook or tweeting about it can actually discourage real action, and I'd go even further and say that even the act of spreading a meme can discourage you from acting on an issue of importance. Robinson argues that "liking" a page on Facebook gives the "liker" a feeling of empowerment, and thus discourages future action. In my post, I discuss how the "cathartic" or fulfilling action of spreading a meme that makes light of a serious situation (in this case, the pepper spraying of UC Davis Occupy protesters on November 18) might actually keep people from reacting in more productive ways. It's a sad fact of modern life, it seems.
To the first commenter, I would suggest that it's a little bit of a stretch to refute this post with assertions on the Arab Spring. We ought to be careful not to assign responsibility to "Facebook" as a nebulous entity. Although I don't have first-hand knowledge, I would imagine that Facebook and Twitter acted as conduits, in those cases—that is, they acted to speed diffusion of information about physical protests and the like. It was the ways in which they facilitated real action that made them useful. I doubt that simply "liking" an anti-government page on Facebook would have the same effect.