In this paper we will be dealing with the important contemporary issue which consists in correlation between the social media activity and civil society as well as radical movements’ response to it. The accent will be put on such informational giants as Facebook and Twitter as well as concrete individuals, who use these resources in order to reach their own goals. We are aimed at answering the question what role of social media is. Additionally, social media will be looked through a prism of current political debates and primaries, threat of terrorism and certain other phenomena. The issue of change of the media concept from objectivity to sensationalism and foxification is to be highlighted as well.
The above-mentioned sensationalism and foxification as well as balkanization of mass media have changed the landscape of political and bipartisanship news outlets. The totality of information, the absence of unbiased resources and the role of each individual person for spreading news have become mainstream in daily life.
It is necessary to answer the main question of this analysis, namely whether social media, Facebook and other resources, are harmful in context of civil society movements or not. It is worth highlighting how they are likely to influence the future and the structure of civil society as well. It will be analyzed in context of 21st century revolutions, wars, and protests, in particular Arab Spring and ISIS activity, during which such instrument as social media was widely used.
Overview of social media contributions
The first issue to deal with is following: what is the role of social media and is it an instrument allowing fear-mongering demagogues to come into power? Michael Cornfield (n.p.) in his Article ‘The Internet and Politics’ wrote that ‘through partisan blogs, political web sites and customized news, the internet only hardens our views, polarizes our politics and contributes to the nation’s red and blue divides’. The balkanization, or total loss of control over the informational channels, has also contributed to the spread of bipolar worldviews. Being created so as to make it possible for an average person to find alternative points of view and to provide people with fully available knowledge, online resources have transformed into the elements of total mechanism of impact on the consciousness of people. Usually, it is rather negative. Foxification is among the consequences of mass media’s refusal to reflect objectivity, having claimed that it is normal, when journalists demponstrate their own point of view.
Dealing with the role of such resources as Twitter and Facebook, it could be summarized that they are considered to be the most used sources of information for an average American. The latest statistical data prove this fac. Particularly, it has been found out that clear majorities of Twitter (63%) and Facebook users (63%) now say each platform serves as a source for news about events and issues outside the realm of friends and family (Barthel, Shearer, Gottfried, and Mitchel, n.p.).
It (such popularity of social media) could be used as an explanation of different political phenomena occurring all over the globe. For instance, when previously unknown politician becomes a leader; when the idea, which was not likely to be supported and even announced, becomes popular and widely supported (for instance Holland referendum on the Ukraine’s association with the EU) and so on. All these events could be explained in context of a crucial role of media and social networks which nowadays serve as the platforms for spread of certain political and other ideas which usually do not correspond with the official course of a state. Criticism of the governmental programs, support for certain political and social movements are in the list of common topics which are discussed online.
Among these examples, the situation with Philippine President’s impeachment trial deserves mentioning. In particular, this situation could be analyzed in context of social media’s highlighting this event and the consequent reaction of the most active groups of society towards the fact that it was likely that the impeachment would be postponed. When the announcement of such decision took place (the Government voted for the support for Mr. Estrada), thousands of people left their homes in order to join the demonstrations. These people were motivated to participate in such actions after the messages, containing the following information ‘Go 2 EDSA. Wear blk’, were forwarded to lots of people (Shirky, p. 1). It led to the situation, when millions of people joined the crowd. In 2001 it was only the beginning of the rise of social media, however, at that moment mass media proved its effectiveness and prospectiveness.
Particularly, in that context civil society was coordinated with a help of messages which were sent from the central ‘body’ of the protesters: moreover, there were approximately seven million text messages during a week (Shirky, p. 1). It resulted in the final decision which constituted that the President who was involved in corruption had to reassign. Estrada himself later blamed such new way of information spreading, namely ‘the text-messaging generation’ for his downfall (Shirky, p. 1). In this context, it can be concluded that social media played rather positive role, since it was used as a tool of direct democracy.
The Internet has transformed political fundraising, says Cornfield, as well as advertising and mobilization (n.p.). For instance, Twitter is used nowadays to spread the following topics: national government and politics. It is used as the main source for obtaining the aforementioned information for 72 % users; international affairs are within the sphere of interest of 63 % readers; business and sports news play important role for a great number of users as well (Barthel, Shearer, Gottfried, and Mitchel, n.p.).
Additionaly, two main social networks, Facebook and Twitter, are used as news resources by the representatives of all the demographic groups, meaning both people under 35 and older surf the net in order to become aware of the latest political, economic, sports, and other social events (Barthel, Shearer, Gottfried, and Mitchel, n.p).
However, creation of the progressive and innovate resources for informational transactions and spread has led to the appearance of new methods of collective consciousness manipulation. These technologies are used, in particular, by the politicians so as to attract the electorate and spread their ideas among the voters. Financial component can be also found in this activity, as the politicians invest their monetary resources in order to provide proper online campaign. Considering people’s need for affiliation and communication with those, who share their principles and beliefs, certain political activists try to unify these interests and spread them within the Internet as if they are the representatives of such groups of interests. \
If certain category of people does not support the taxation policy, a politician in order to obtain people’s support will start criticizing the above-mentioned policy. This is merely populism, but it, in fact, is effective, and people will support such a politician.
Balkanization and foxification
The quality of the mass media is another issue to be mentioned. In particular, when people are overwhelmed with the amount of information as well number of the resources, the need for supply is obvious. The main target which people think has to be present in a modern informational resource is objectivity.
Additionally, people are convinced that classical resources, such as BBC or CNN, could not fully satisfy their needs to be provided with news. People search for those news which consists of certain principles they support. For instance, people supporting Republican Party are likely to watch Fox News. The channel has established the practice, when journalists’ point of view can be shown on the screen. Objectivity under such circumstances does not play important role. That is derived from the humans’ nature, namely from people’s desire to participate in all the activities surrounding them.
Foxification of news can be called a form of people’s participation in news creation, as their opinions through the channel are demonstrated. This strategy has been implemented in Fox News’ principle: ‘We offer opinions not seen anywhere else’ (Economist, n.p.). On this basis, the idea that transparency is the new objectivity has been widely supported.
In particular, one of its ideologists, Rosen, has emphasized on the following important features which have to be present in a contemporary successful mass media resource which can be also called foxification of news: it can be summarized that a journalist is also a person, who has their own views, principles, and attitudes towards certain political and other social phenomena, and the main thing is to honestly demonstrate it, but not to lie to your audience trying to demonstrate objectivity. (Economist, n.p.). Only such model will lead to creation of trust between the resource and audience.
The results of balkanization as a nowadays phenomenon, which led to total loss of control over people’s choices what to look through online, are as follows: Because the Internet and streaming make the distribution of news and culture affordable for almost anyone, the very few can no longer bottleneck mass distribution; the very few can no longer control what we see, read, and hear (Nolte, n.p.). Balkanization is a form of protest against the always existing monopoly of certain mass media in the sphere of creation of opinions. It is now possible to look through a great number of resources from different parts of the world, and, consequently, to come to your own conclusion. Of course, balkanization has its negative side, namely people are not expected to search for ‘rational’ resources, since the search for the right answers could disappoint the searcher because of time spending and failure to find them.
Thus, people stop using the whole massive of information, but start using certain media resources which correspond with their political and social position and status. It can be said that the majority returns to the previous phase of news collection. Moreover, balkanization loses its sense, under such circumstances.
Arab Spring and Social Media
Arab Spring is the metaphorical name, given for the period of revolutionary riots in the Arab world, which lasted during the end of 2010-2012. During it, four of the world’s most recalcitrant dictators – Zine el Abadine Ben Ali of Tunsia, Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt – fell after long dictatorial decades in power (Howard, Muzzamil, p. 3).
It becomes the issue of worldwide interest, how such revolutions could have taken place for such a short period of time in countries, oppressed for centuries. The majority of people do recognize the crucial role of media in the initiation, running and general success of revolutionary events.
Instant sharing of news, revolutionary posts, which were liked by thousands of people for an hour, made the youth and the open-minded adult populations acknowledge their internal power, which could not be stopped by any government counter-measures.
Indeed, in particular countries some efforts of officials to block particular news resources, social networks (even Facebook) took place. However, such attempts were not effective at all, in contrary – they certified the fear of government, which only fueled further cooperation among population.
Obviously, Internet resources influenced every country in different way. Nevertheless, even those states, where Internet penetration was on lower level, benefited from other kinds of media. E-mails, phones, constant broadcasting also played significant roles as quick as efficient mechanism of information transference, allowing more and more people to be engaged in one common idea of democracy birth.
On the other hand, the role of media could not be exaggerated too much, as tools of Internet, cell phones, etc. are undoubtedly important, but they are not the reasons of revolution awakening, just facilitating tools.
Another example of usage of social networks by certain groups that pursued certain propaganda goals could be found in ISIS activity. It has been estimated that Islamic state possesses over 46, 000 Twitter accounts which are controlled by their supporters (Alfred, n.p.). These accounts are mostly created in Arab countries, in particular in Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq (Alfred, n.p.). However, great number of accounts were created in the United State and United Kingdom as well.
It means that radical forces understand the importance of such instruments and their potential effect and influence on the consciousness of, inter alia, youth, many representatives of which have already participated in ISIS activity. Such Twitter activity results in the following consequences: short, prolonged bursts of activity cause hashtags to trend, resulting in third-party aggregation and insertion of tweeted content into search results (Alfred, n.p.).
Understanding the powerful impact of such Islamic State’s online activity, Twitter’s administration has decided to start blocking such users’ accounts. Among the strategies of the radicals, the following could be mentioned: some of the group’s success on Twitter reflected coordinated strategies by users, including the repeated tweeting of the same content by the same user within a short period of time, and the tweeting of the same content by a core group of about 2,000 users (Gladstone, Goel, n.p.)
These accounts are used to spread the ISIS’ ideology consisting in the establishment of caliphate, demonstration of the executions, and potential threats to the Western world. The content which they use is high-quality and terrifying. The speed of its spread is also high. Thus, even actions taken by the governments and social networks’ administrations are not enough to stop it.
Political Change
Social media, as it has been mentioned, has become a powerful instrument in hands of politicians. It can be proven by the recent primaries and further elections in the U.S., during which such networks, as Twitter and Facebook are used by the candidates Trump, Sanders. It is used by the other ones as well. But the former and the later demonstrated the significant power of such mechanism having obtained much support, inter alia, because of their virtual activity. In particular, Trump has more than 5.5 million Twitter followers and 4.5 million Facebook fans. He has a presence across YouTube, Vine, Instagram and Periscope (Parkinson, n.p.). He was even called to be the most successful in the sphere of Internet activity among other politicians of nowadays. Additionally, he has organized regular sessions on Periscope.
His short videos are characterized as quick, slick with doom-laden music, out-of-context soundbites and black-and-white filters (Parkinson, n.p.). Despite Trump’s ignoring TV campaign and his not spending much money on it, his online activity is reflected on the screens as well. It produces even more results, than the attempts of the other candidates to win the audience using only TV programs and advertisements.
Twitter is used so as to quickly demonstrate the polician’s vision of the current events. It helps Trump to debate and express sarcasm. People, on the other hand, are not interested in the context of his messages, but only in the way these messages are provided, since they are usually considered to be funny by them. However, they often do not have any sense and are populistic.
Among other online tools used by Trump we can mention his hashtag ‘AskTrump’ which helped him to engage lots of people in the conversation with him and gain much support. It was characterized in the following way: he effortlessly dominated the conversation online which translated into mainstream media coverage (Parkinson, n.p.). On the contrary, this online activity is also filtered and can be harmful for a politicians.
For instance, Trump’s political reputation was damaged after his comment on Muslims. It resulted in lots of public critical assessments of such statements. For instance, Arianna Huffington wrote that she no longer viewed Trump’s candidacy as amusing and Buzzfeed’s editor-in-chief Ben Smith also tweeted a memo he wrote to his staff, in which he said it was fine for them to call Trump “a mendacious racist” (Parkinson, n.p)
In other words, the comprehensive effect of social media influences not only impersonal political life in general meaning, but it may also be used by particular political figures for reaching new political achievements.
In comparison to the example of Donald Trump, whose campaign pays attention on the overwhelming increasing of reminds of his name in any context (even not only positive one), his opponent Bernie Sanders tries to establish more sustainable ties with his numerous followers. Alike to Trump, who manages to pay significant attention towards his person on Facebook, Twitter and Periscope, Sanders actively uses Instagram to be as close to his voters as possible. In addition, cute and catchy hashtag, made up by him, namely -#feelthebern, attracts millions of people and triggers thousands of retweets per day.
His popularity is gained among the youth who are amused with propagandized by Sanders pop culture, which encourages people to create own social media content around this candidate’s figure. Therefore, tools of social media are perfect instruments in the hands of professional politicians, who use them for own manipulations with public opinion.
Conclusions
Works cited
Alfred, Charlotte. “Who’s Behind the Islamic State’s Propaganda on Twitter?”. The Huffington Post 6 March 2016. Print
Barthel, Michael, Shearer, Elisa, Gottfried, Jeffrey, Mitchell, Amy. “PewResearchCenter 14 July 2015. Print
Chokshi, Niraj. “President Obama’s Brutal Assessment of the rise of Donald Trump.” The Washington Post 12 March 2016. Print
Cornfield, Michael. “The Internet and Politics: No Revolution, Yet.” PewResearchCenter 6 November 2006. Print
Gladstone, Rick, Goel, Vindu. “ISIS Is Adept on Twitter, Study Finds” The New York Times 5 March 2016. Print
Howard, Philip N., Muzammil, M. Hussain. Democracy's Fourth Wave?: Digital Media and the Arab Spring. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Print
Jamali, Reza. Online Arab Spring: Social Media and Fundamental Change. Kidlington: Chandos Publishing, 2014. Print.
Nolte, John. “Why the Internet’s Balkanization of News & Culture Is a Good Thing”. Breitbart 12 Mary 2015. Print
Parkinson, Hannah Jane. “Can Donald Trump's social media genius take him all the way to the White House?” The Guardian 23 December 2015. Print
Shirky, Clay. “The Political Power of Social Media”. Foreign Affairs January 2011. Print.
