New Battleground: Social Media

In the past journalists have chronicled wars by piecing together news reports from eyewitnesses and military reports. Who knew that the history would come to the point where military forces would take the role of journalism themselves, distributing their own live reports and even taking the war itself to a whole new battleground--social media.

This idea became a reality when the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) started live-blogging and tweeting about an attack on Hamas in the Gaza strip and uploading video of their rocket blasts to YouTube. As BuzzFeed notes in its round-up of Twitter posts from the Israeli army the IDF actually warned Hamas guerillas not to show themselves on the Gaza strip or risk being killed in the attacks that began last week.

Source: AP Press, Sebastian Scheiner

Article "Israel and Hamas battle on social media as well" discusses how militants have exchanged fiery tweets in order to influence public opinion. I found it interesting that after the IDF posted a video of airstrike on its official YouTube page, Google removed it, yet restored it later. This caught my attention, especially since I thought that Google refused to take down other videos, such as the "Innocence of Muslims" due to the "freedom of speech." Nevertheless, like the article states, "some people believe Google should always fall on the side of free expression because YouTube has become such an important forum for opinion, commentary and news."

"We have a bias in favor of people's right to free expression in everything we do," wrote Rachel Whetstone, Google's director of global communications and public affairs, "We are driven by a belief that more information generally means more choice, more freedom and ultimately more power for the individual. But we also recognize that freedom of expression can't be — and shouldn't be — without some limits. The difficulty is in deciding where those boundaries are drawn."

I thought this article was very insightful not only because it introduces us to the "new war," but also explains in detail how social media sites and internet conglomerates like Google monitor and select the content. "In the first half of this year alone, Google said it received more than 1,700 court orders and other requests from government agencies around the world to remove more than 17,700 different pieces of content from its services." While regulations aren't certainly bad, I think what defines "freedom of speech" should be used more carefully, since certain content is still taken down.

The Circle of Injustice

"In January 2012, after 30 years of legal impunity, former Guatemalan general and dictator Efraín Ríos Montt found himself indicted by a Guatemalan court for crimes against humanity. Against all odds, he was charged with committing genocide in the 1980s against the country's poor, Mayan people." pbs.org

Image taken from pbs.org

It took many years and this act was brought to justice thanks to protagonists in Guatemala, Spain and the United States. It was inspiring to see few of those protagonists, Pamela Yates and her husband, Paco. They presented their documentary "Granito: How To Nail a Dictator" which revealed how people of Guatemala, along with international help, tried to bring justice to occurring tyranny against them. 

Instead of re-telling the plot (since I recommend for anyone, who hasn't seen it yet, to watch it), I want to expand on the impact this documentary has played. Watching "Granito" reminded me about my own country. It made me think that no matter where in the world: Europe, Africa, Latin America, China, the United States, and others, the poor and those who strive to gain freedom, truth and justice-are still struggling to this day. 

In the name of greed and the power of privileged, societies are manipulated and masses of people are being killed. The change is possible, but, unfortunately, it's slow. And that's what really stuck from the documentary (because this applies not only to Guatemala but to any nation trying to fight for justice). Until political elite will hold privilege using its power to defend wrongful people, the history just will keep repeating itself.

Interestingly enough, after watching this film, I also found references to Guatemala in the book called "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman (also highly recommended.) As it was mentioned in the documentary, this book also discusses the capability of the United States to cover its interests and involvement in the genocide that happened in Guatemala. 

In fact, the examples are given how media purposely was not covering any issues associated with that matter, only brief mentions. About the mass media's "worthy" and "unworthy" victims, the illustrated example in the book compares media coverage of Jerzy Popieluszko ("worthy victim")-- a Polish priest who was murdered due to his fight for solidarity (blame was put on communists) and other "unworthy" victims in Latin countries. It makes you wonder, what role does the media play? "Granito" serves as example of impact a single documentary can make. Imagine the effect if all of the media would try to expose the truth in a correct matter. Unfortunately, as we have learned in quite a few of presentations and readings, the media isn't quite there yet.

In addition, I found a reference in the book about Nineth de Garcia (a mother of Alexandar Garcia, a young lady who was worried about her father's disappearance). It tells that in attempt to gain support abroad two of the remaining leaders of GAM (activist group) traveled to Europe. Because of ill health Garcia had to cancel her visits in Washington D.C.  and flew directly from Europe to Chicago. There she ended up being interrogated and harassed by officials of  INS Who called her a subversive and a communist. When the press conference was held in Chicago by supporters of GAM to protest this outrage, the major media did not attend and neither the press releases, formal follow-up letters, etc. break the silence.

Their simple justification was that the convergence between Reagan Administration policy toward Guatemala and media priority was complete. Guatemala's army, on the other hand, gave this response:"... a black campaign of falsehood... Insults and insolence directed at the military institution that exceed the boundaries of liberty and tolerance for free speech." Really?

As in the past, that unworthiness of victims remains an essential ingredient in the Guatemalan army's continued freedom to kill and an excuse for mass media in the United States "not to pay attention."Unfortunately, as this article discusses, even though some of the justice has been served, the people of Guatemala are still struggling and striving for justice to this day...

Sense of relief

Well, the Election night is finally here and crowds are already celebrating the win of Obama's re-election. Frankly, I try to avoid discussing politics (or religion) since both topics rarely come to a agreement. However, tonight I feel a sense of relief.

Like for most of us, there are things we agree and disagree with, especially when talking about politics. I don't want to get into detailed discussion specifying reasons which candidate is better and why, but I'd like to point out a couple of observations from just watching Election today.

• First of all, it's nice to watch actual democratic elections (without scandals of vote buy outs, corruption, etc.)
• Second, I'd be more worried if Romney won because it would mean we'd just wasted four years. Not to idolize Obama, but things do not get done overnight. It is interesting to see voters saying they vote for Romney just because Obama "didn't satisfy their needs."History shows that when re-elected, Presidents try to leave a legacy behind them. If they fail, then we can "blame and trash" them, if they win--we "praise" them. With current situation, I'd rather give another four years for President so he could prove himself than be in doubt about new one. 
• Thirdly, I'm a visual person, therefore current Electoral map shows me a trend (all major states with metropolitan areas, IL, WI, MI, FL(still not clear), West Coast, East Coast (including Romney's state MA) are "blue,"while rural areas and majority of southern states- "red." I don't want to draw conclusions in regards to "blue" states being more educated, etc., but at least it makes me think about it. 
• Finally, if Obama wins, he'd better prove himself and move "forward." At least we all will get a sense of relief after the political campaign ads will stop...

cnn.com

Sandy & Social Media

As the East Coast tries to recover from the hurricane Sandy and presidential elections are only a day away, news channels are flooded with discussions, images, videos about those topics. But so is the internet and social media. With emergence of technological tools, social media and blogging, the role of citizen journalist has increased dramatically.

But, as news showed this passed week (and still showing today), among those images of destruction, a number of fakes also went viral. Even though I was aware that hoaxes appear online regularly, I also noted how journalists now try to pinpoint and debunk those frauds. Of course, despite how skeptical we might view mainstream media or reports by amateurs, it is ultimately up to us, the audience, to decide between what's real and fake.

According to Nielsen, there are more than 233 million internet users. When a big story happens, such as hurricane Sandy, regular citizens now employ tools to inform one another. We saw the impact social media can create with the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street movements. In addition, mainstream media also benefits from citizen journalists as they post their stories and images. In fact, they encourage civilians to post their photos, videos to news sites.

Article "How Hurricane Sandy and Twitter made the world scream fire in a crowded Internet" describes not only positive impact that social media can create, but also how it can create "dangers of a screaming fire."The phrase that should come to mind in all of this is “shouting fire in a crowded theater.” This metaphor, according to article, was coined during the Schenck v. United States case of 1919. The phrase, in full, reads:“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.” There are at least few instance in history, when falsely spread information caused panic and even death.

So why the history lesson? Because it’s become all-too relevant in the wake of Hurricane Sandy and @ComfortablySmug’s false allegations. The simple act of tweeting out unsubstantiated information resulted in the likes of established, respected news sources like CNN and The Weather Channel picking up and further spreading the news — and thus, further spreading the panic.

It is upsetting that there are people posting hoaxes during emergency situations without thinking about the consequences it may create to others. As article notes, "if you flip through comments on some of the more terrifying fake photos (which The Atlantic has a great round up of), you’ll read concerned, and even plain scared comments." As we use more tools to inform one another, it is necessary to be more critical and aware of the veritable information that reaches us, so we would avoid the panic of "screaming fire."

Image source: digitaltrends.com

Make their wallets "Itch"

Image source: AP Press

Income inequality has risen during past three decades. We still hear (and probably more frequently) "the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer" phrase that seems to linger in everyone's mind (even the rich ones).  The question is who is bothered by it and who is still benefiting from it.

The gap between the rich and the poor is certainly not a new topic.  During the Presidential debates, this topic was also discussed as candidates tried to provide their solutions which, presumably, would solve this problem.  Christopher s. Rugaber presents in his article "Why it Matters:Income Inequality" statements that each candidate made:

    President Barack Obama would raise taxes on households earning more than $250,000 a year, plus set a minimum tax rate of 30 percent for those who earn $1 million or more. He also wants to spend more on education as "a gateway to the middle class." Republican Mitt Romney blames Obama's economic policies for failing to create enough jobs so that middle- and lower-income Americans can earn more. He wants to cut taxes more broadly and says that will generate enough growth to raise incomes for all Americans.

Both statements might sound like a valid solution. However, the popular "fact checking" after the debates concluded that neither statement would bring a valid solution. Even though I would agree more with Obama's statement in regards to raising taxes, still there are flaws. The low- and middle-income classes have certainly been "drained" and, surely, "the rich" could spare more to "Uncle Sam," but I doubt that this would narrow the gap. On one hand, it seems logical that an increase in flow of money back to the middle and lower classes would benefit the economy. The change is slow and long and would take more than just a game with taxes. 

I particularly liked  Noah's argument about putting regulations on Wall Street. We have witnessed an example of increased gas prices couple of years ago and, as we know, hurricanes weren't to blame. Given excuses for supply and demand also weren't the reason. Actually, the supply at that time was higher than the demand and prices had to go down instead, but Wall Street played its role, once again, in getting rich richer and the poor poorer. Until the change will actually happen and there would be a narrower gap between the classes, I'd say make their wallets "itch."

Least Debatable

With presidential debates behind and discussions about who won them, there are still many unanswered questions. What about growing inequality, what about housing and education crisis? Which one of the candidates gave us answers to the possible solutions? Some of the media outlets have focused on this problem, like an article by Jake Miller "What they didn't say at the debates", which discusses the issues like housing and, particularly, education crisis. Even though avoided at the debates, for the average American, the growing crisis about those issues actually might be the most important ones.

Image source: cnn.com

The question that everyone seems to be struggling to answer is what could be done about it. As this article describes, Finland is currently leading as the nation with highest scores in education. However, if they have implemented ideas from the United States, why does the system seem to be failing here? Personally, I believe that one of the problems is certainly caused by the established individualism.

When I first moved to the United States, my dreams and hopes were focused on the education. I grew up under a different education system, the one that certainly didn't focus on individual tracks. As a student, you were placed in a classroom with other 20 or so people, staying with them through the next 10 or 12 years, going to the same classes and studying same subjects.

As socialist as it might sound, it also (as I've realized this now) taught us something. Not only you had to prove yourself (and your parents) that you can be a good student, but you had to stand for your classroom as a whole. If there were bad students who fell behind, your overall grade (average) of classroom dropped, compared to others. Also, even though there were some exemplary teachers, there were others, who would make sure you would not pass certain tests if they didn't like your attitude. Once again, as seen from examples in charter schools, competition is one of the driving forces. However, that competition in a socialist way was focused more on the whole group instead of an individual. Each student could learn how she or he would excel compared to the rest in the classroom.

The documentary that we have seen during class raised me a question: aside from funding, why would charter schools, without track system, seem to get higher overall scores than public schools? And why, after so many debates, the crisis still seems to be present without a definite solution to the problem.

The United States definitely have seen a decline in the education. Therefore, I would agree with Kumashiro that all schools could be better. But it would involve much more than teachers, parents or students themselves to get involved in order to fix the problem. In addition, I would hardly call this a "crisis," as American education is still valuable and desirable around the world. Being absent from the number one spot, does't necessarily constitute "crisis" yet. Maybe redirecting oneself from the individualistic approach would make a change. Maybe, but this would be only a fraction to the possible solutions of the problem.

Is America the greatest?

My friend shared this video on facebook after the presidential debate. His commentary was that candidates maybe should try answering this question as well, that is, why America is the greatest country in the world (or not). This clip contains speech by Will McAvoy (played by Jeff Daniels) from the HBO series The Newsroom. With current situation in the country and "ongoing debates," I thought this also ties in with our classroom discussions (crisis in education, economy, etc.). 

Even though this is a "played out scene," I agree with my friend that it sounds more realistic than current ongoing debates. This speech, lasting merely over three minutes, generated over a million views. The scene concludes that:

"The first step in solving any problem is to recognize there is one.
America is not the greatest country in the world anymore."

Of course, every controversial  issue cannot be without contradictions. In response to the video, Gary Shapiro, president and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association and contributor to Forbes magazine, states an opposing opinion to the question "Is America the Greatest Country in the World?". Shapiro argues that America (should say the United States) is the greatest country in the world and contradicts given statistics which suggest that we are just "another declining country."In regards to declining education, Shapiro states:

"We may not be the best at basics, but we are phenomenal at teaching students to challenge the status quo. Our First Amendment, our immigrant and diverse culture, our “can-do” attitude and our entrepreneurial spirit come together to produce a nation of innovators."

However, it seems that his overall conclusion falls into an agreement with character Will McAvoy, that America (the United States) was a great nation and, even though its power seems to decline, it can still sustain its greatness.

"We certainly have problems, and we must address them. Our politicians and even our voters are failing to deal with the big issues. We focus on meaningless political squabbles as the cost and reality of rapidly growing entitlements threaten to send us into an economic tailspin. We are living today rather than investing for tomorrow. And we are raising youth who may not understand the values that we once shared as a nation."

This issue would require a much more elaborate discussion. Every country thinks of itself as being exceptional. United States certainly is considered to be among, if not, the greatest nations in the world, however, its history is also among the shortest. Throughout the centuries, from Roman Empire to Great Britain, Germany, Russia, China (and others), countries witnessed the gain of the prominent power, as well as decline. While others hold strong opinions about exceptionalism (and we've learned in class about American students leading in "confidence"), one can no longer deny the fact that the United States is at decline. Discussions in class also seemed to be concerned about "the decline" of opinion, tolerance, education, etc. While the state of decline sounds negative, it also makes us fall back on reality, helping us to realize the problem and looking for solutions. Regardless the country or its power among others, most of us desire better for the future. Now, only if politics were the same way :).