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