The ‘Arab Spring’: are Facebook and Twitter to blame?

How much power can social media have in a revolutionary rebellious country? Can social media tools such as facebook or twitter be responsible for a change in society? And what’s the relationship between social developments and social media? 

I came across these questions in one of my lectures at university while discussing the ‘Arab Social Media Report’ on the usage of Facebook and Twitter during the ‘Arab Spring’ movement. The report covers the usage within the first months after the uprisings in the Arab world which started back in October 2010.

According to the ‘Arab Social Media Report’ , “#egypt, #jan25, #lybia, #bahrain and #protest were the most popular trending hashtags across the Arab region in the first quarter of 2011”. 

These ‘tweets’ amongst others have reached many people around the world and social networks such as Twitter or Facebook seem to be the new way of communicating between and within social groups. It’s fast, easy and very powerful. No matter where you are in the world, as long as you have a phone on you, you can access the world of internet and connect within.

Just as an example, imagine a young guy with an iphone on the streets in Egypt. He’s taking a picture of a demonstration outside the prime minister’s house. Only moments later, this exact picture will reach his friends on Facebook and may get re-tweeted by others who have used the same hashtag as, for example‘#protest #egypt’.

The role of social media in the recent uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa has been discussed by many observers and as there is still an ongoing debate on how much of an influence social media actually had and still has.

Yet social media is clearly shaping events. Facebook and Twitter have sped up the protests by spreading the news and quickly connecting people. Demonstrations, exchanging information within their networks, and making people aware of events locally and globally have been an easy way for users of these social networks, be it private or the government.

But in the end, are these social media networks really the reason for the uprisings? 

Many argue that it is simply the frustration of the oppressed people and I agree that the uprisings would have emerged with or without the use of Facebook or Twitter. However, the Arab Social Media Report states that “the number of facebook has risen significantly in most Arab countries, most notably so in the countries where protests have taken place.”

So yes, social media has certainly played an important role in distributing information and getting connected within social groups but there are other factors too. According to the Arab Social Media Report, factors like the region and age, education, wealthiness and the use of technology groups played an important role.

So are the people who use Facebook younger, are they more educated and make more use of technology? Or is it depending on the region they live in, how much internet access  they have and what heritage and religion  people are from? All these factors decide whether or not social media is being used by these specific social groups or not.

If you read closer into the Report, you will notice that in a country with a population of 85 million people, only 5 % make use of Facebook and only 1% use of Twitter. While it is true, that activitists and younger (70% of social media users), wealthier and more educated people may connect with one another and build strong ties via these technologies, I believe that injustice and community organizations played a more direct role in mobilizing the masses. 

But why is so much attention now drawn on social media usage in the “Arab Spring” revolution? Do people really think that this is the main reason for the uprisings?

I know that revolutions and protests have taken place well before the affects of ‘social media’ became a discussion. I am thinking of the case in my home country Germany and about the ‘Berliner Mauer’ (Berlin wall) in the 1980s. Back then, people in the eastern part of Germany harldy even had phones they could use to communicate but still managed to take down a regime.

Still, there is no denying that these social media tools have had a strong influence on how the uprisings in the Arab world developed. But isn’t it the people rather than the technology who are to blame for these uprisings?

Well, technology makes it certainly easier to spread the word to multiple recipients in a wider and faster way.

For example, different groups sharing same opinions can “like” each others’ Facebook pages and merge memberships without confronting others directly. Even though they make their voice public, speech of freedom applies if no regulations of the social networking site are violated. Same with Twitter, where opinions and tactics can be rapidly re-tweeted and sourced as stories by pretty much anyone who tweets. Activists can share tips and techniques, and arrange meetings with one another. 

But as the information spreads faster and more widely within the protestants groups, the regimes and governments respond to it very quickly too. Therefore the chances of being tracked down by the Arab regime are conceiveable. Between January and March this year, several regimes completely shut down internet access in several countries such as Libya, Syria or Egypt. So while these regimes believed that they could avoid protests by shutting down internet, television and phone networks, the number of protesters may have actually increased.

Nowadays, social media are a big part of organising a revolutionary change within social groups but having said that, they are not necessary or sufficient to make a revolution possible. It seems like we are concentrating so much on technologies that we ignore the power of how people are getting mobilized as a network without depending on social media. In Egypt, these networks may include family connections, neighbourhoods, mosques, and historical institutions. Even though the ‘Arab Social Media Report’ showed that the usage of social media increased during the uprisings, these new technologies won’t erode these classic models of communication.

By being so quick to blame social media for political and social unrest, we ignore the powerful economic and political drawbacks that drive discontent. With or without Facebook and Twitter, people will stand up and speak their minds. Rather than focusing on technologies which are used by its people to free their minds, we should concentrate on the networks by which they choose to communicate.

And coming back to my initial questions on “how much power social media can have?”, and if “it’s social factors or technology that drives social change?” my attempted answer would be this:

 In the case of the “Arab Spring”, the social factors and the unrest of the people under their regime have evoked the uprisings and by saying that, the use of Facebook and Twitter have helped to spread the word and made it easier for protestants to communicate and arrange meetings. So for me, the social factors were the main reason for the uprisings which drove the intensive usage of social media during that time.

Al Jazeera: the Middle- Eastern answer to Western media outlets?

                    

Coming across Al Jazeera in one of my University lectures a few days ago, I was surprised by its highly recognised status as a news channel not only in the Arab world but also internationally.

By now, the broadcasting service Al Jazeera is widely known amongst most people through their diverse and unique news coverage as a global news channel. It seems like Al Jazeera is the Middle- Eastern answer to popular Western Media outlets such as BBC or CNN.  But even though I have heard about the news channel, I wasn’t really aware of what an impact Al Jazeera had and still does have on the worldwide audience, and especially the Arab world.

When Al Jazeera became more widely known, it was seen as the new voice for the eastern media and gave Arabs the opportunity to form and discuss opinions. Before that, news was basically coming from western media outlets and most Arabs didn’t understand the way these outlets covered their nations’ news, especially referring to the US war against Afghanistan which evolved out of the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

Only known in the Arab world, Al Jazeera began broadcasting in 1996 but it wasn’t until 2001 that its content began capturing international attention. Their videos and exclusive coverage of Osama Bin Laden raised questions about a new form of news coverage, guaranteeing that the world and especially America was tuning in.

Al- Jazeera emerged from the war with vastly increased name recognition and a growing audience internationally. Finally the Arab world found a media outlet which was showing the war from their own perspective through very open opinions and footage of the war which was not only attracting more audience but also confronting other media outlets and the US military.

But how far does news coverage go? Does this include showing Iraqi-supplied videos of dead and captured coalition troops? Or crying children who just lost their parents?

Watching the documentary ‘Control Room’ (2004) which was also part of my lecture’s assignments, I saw a different angle on how Al Jazeera works inside their newsroom. Just for those of you who haven’t watched or heard about this film, ‘Control Room’ is a documentary about the Iraq war and it compares the preconceived notion of the Al Jazeera network with that of American news outlets as well as showing interviews with Al Jazeera journalists and American military. It reveals on a very personal basis how Al Jazeera is seen by other media outlets and how its presence and coverage of the Iraq war influenced today’s media.

“Any war has a human cost”- Al Jazeera’s words in this documentary and their statement about the war.They want to show what’s happening with all the bad things going on, there is no war which is good, there is only pain and it hurts but their stories are real and they do show the human cost at war. This shows a different kind of news coverage, and this is why it makes them so successful. Even though it became the most controversial news channel in the Arab world, it is now seen as a highly classed media outlet all over the world.

Some people even say that the channel is rather tasteless in showing violence but compared to other countries, they are allowed. Or have you seen news on Channel 9 or Channel 7 where they show how Iraqi soldiers are killed?

I don’t think you have and neither have I. So is this straight-forward news reporting a question of simple boldness or purely to get the most clicks on their website for their footage?

There is definitely a clashing of opinions but one thing seems where everyone would agree on: the news are stirring and getting the audience’s attention which is the main purpose of a media outlet. Who gets the most audience and who can best convince with their deliver of what’s going on in the world?

But is this all Al Jazeera wants - success and fame? Some people may think so and Al Jazeera did confirm this up to a certain degree when they sold their exclusive footage of e.g. Osama Bin Laden videos to media outlets all around the world. But the channel refers back to the importance of them representing a different view in the Arab world and giving Arab people an alternative media outlet to Western news organizations. 

                                 

It has become clear that Al Jazeera’s influence is pervasive. The difference between Al Jazeera and other traditional media organizations in the Middle East is its independence.

In a region that has been dominated by state run, Al Jazeera was the first to actually represent news coverage of Arab and global politics that was relatively independent of the powerful elite interests. An element of this independence can be observed in the nature of Al Jazeera’s programs. In contrast to traditional coverage, Al Jazeera adopts a western model of media entertainment, offering shows that encouraged critical coverage and debates between opposing political and social groups.

 Al Jazeera shows the war right from the centre with its confronting but in-depth news footages such as people getting killed or bombing houses. The images Al Jazeera shows are more confronting and the war is real,  it hurts and Al Jazeera is there to show it all.

Comparing Al Jazeera to other media outlets such as BBC or CNN, I agree with Robert D. Kaplan who says that Al Jazeera’s news coverage is “vibrant, visually stunning, the reports are real and the interviewees are honest”.  Al Jazeera tries to get people ‘on air’ who are a part of the war, and tell their own stories as opposed to just show politicans and the military talk such as CNN or BBC would do.

Overall, I think that Al Jazeera has changed the way we conceive news nowadays, and it may now be seen as one of the most influential media outlets with its world wide coverage and availability to be watched in English. Making the channel available in English gives people who are not from the Arab world, the opportunity to understand the Arabic taste and the culture difference. It lets them see the Arab cultures from their own point of view and it does not get filtered through the Western perspective.

As for me, I believe that Al Jazeera has made a big difference in the way news can be broadcasted and it did make me rethink some of the values a news channel should have. Honest and real news have become very rare in a world of fame and entertainment and Al Jazeera brings back these important values of a news channel for me.

Wouldn’t you rather see what’s going on in the world than Ricky Nixon yelling at a journalist for asking him questions about his sex affair with a St. Kilda schoolgirl?

I sure do!