The evolution of revolution

Free the carrier pigeon, abandon Morse code, and overlook Radio Free Europe (RFE).

The fact is, a new type of communication is at the forefront of today’s political revolutions. Today, rebellions organized via social networking sites are emerging as the newest trend in conflict initiation.

Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and mobile phone text messaging have become breeding grounds for rebel and dissident movements worldwide. Now only a click away, supporting a coup has never been so easy.

While Canadian university students use Facebook to plan birthdays, charity bake sales, and bar nights, Moldovan students have used it to plan uprisings against their Communist government.

In countries where speaking out against the government is not tolerated, many young activists have been forced to find creative avenues to pursue aggressive action for their cause.

Interestingly, many have turned to the social networking sites they know all too well as a means to articulate dissent and to orchestrate revolt.

While this may appear groundbreaking, according to the Washington Post, throughout history, “Protesters have often used new technologies to evade government attempts to stifle dissent.” The Washington Post notes, even when the Soviet Union appeared on the verge of collapse, “Dissenters used underground fax services to spread information.”

New media technologies provide vital communication links. Exploiting such communication avenues, while evading governmental interference, is the key to raising awareness for a political cause. Undeniably, this is the future of revolution.

Moldova
In April 2009, political unrest bred outright civil disobedience in Moldova’s capital of Chisinau.



Activists, expressing discontent over the Communist Party’s recent re-election victory, overwhelmed the police presence and effectively stormed the country’s parliament buildings. Upon retreat, the dissidents left the government offices in ruins and the typically heavy-handed Communist government in utter bewilderment.

According to RFE, the entire act was organized and carried out using a combination of Twitter, Facebook, mobile phone text messaging, blogs, and e-mail.

RFE reports that even as online access to news organizations and opposition parties was blacked out by the Communist government, organizers simply switched to using Facebook to plan and spread information about upcoming demonstrations. The online organization made it impossible for the Moldovan government to monitor or control the students’ activities.

Iran
In the summer of 2009, Twitter was also a major player in Iran’s ongoing political drama. In June, as Iranian President Ahmadinejad claimed re-election victory, many took to the streets in protest. According to the Washington Post, these demonstrations were entirely prearranged via Facebook and Twitter.



The Washington Post reports that Twitter’s influence on the Iranian political situation was so profound that even U.S. government officials took notice.

In turn, the U.S. State Department asked Twitter to postpone scheduled maintenance of their site, as to not disrupt communication between the dissident movement organizers and their supporters within Iran’s borders.

During the uprising, the mainstream media even grew dependent on Twitter updates as the Iranian government barred the press from entering the country. On some occasions, the Washington Post reports, “The predominant information [was] coming from Twitter.”

In light of this summer’s events, many in Iran have since coined the revolt “a Twitter revolution.”

Somalia
Terrorists, not to be left out of this new trend, have begun to use social networking technologies to their benefit as well.

The BBC reports that Al-Shabab, a radical insurgent Islamic group with reported links to Al-Qaeda, conducts all of its communication via text messages.



The group, operating within war-ravaged Somalia, reportedly organizes its troops, communicates between them, and issues threats to opposing parties using mobile phone text messaging systems.

According to the BBC, low-ranking military officers are given pre-paid phone cards by elite members of the group.

This way, the leadership of al-Shabab is allowed the disguise of complete anonymity and never even has to set foot in Somali territory.

America
The developing world, however, is not the only one getting in on the social networking action.

While hardly a rebellion, Barack Obama’s successful 2008 presidential campaign is an example of effective use of modern communication technologies.

(Segment relevant to this post starts at 1:45)


The Obama team hired Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes to promote the Democratic hopeful online.

It worked. Obama’s web campaign was revolutionary and unarguably successful in targeting the youth vote, which has traditionally been a difficult demographic to get out to the polls.

The aforementioned examples of digital activism are only a minute cross section of actual occurrences across the globe. In fact, to date, social networking sites have become a powerful political tool throughout the world.

As this technology continues to evolve, it may become better known for its revolutionary potential than its social networking capabilities.

My final project for this course is the blog The Evolution of Revolution. If you are at all interested in the field of digital activism, I encourage you to check it out. Ultimately, this blog will explore the social media revolution currently unfolding; a revolution that could craft our future world order.

As citizens unite in the digital public sphere, it appears that engagement with politics is changing. In countries where newspapers, magazines, and independent television stations are not permitted to exist freely, it seems that an especially active and engaged online population often emerges.

As the democratizing force of digital activism matures, and if the “spinternet” is kept at bay, it is plausible that those who assert themselves in the digital public sphere will see their actions transcend the blogosphere and engage a populace beyond that of even cyberspace.

While a new consciousness is unarguably emerging online, we must question whether it is powerful enough to curb citizen apathy toward political engagement. Does the digital public sphere have a future as a democratic staple? I hope to find out.

"Will the Internet Kill Magazines? Did Instant Coffee Kill Coffee?"

Today, print media obituaries are neither new nor all that surprising. In fact, it seems as though we have grown accustomed to the fact that print is dying and/or already dead.

Understandably, this prevailing narrative is deeply concerning to those in the relatively stable magazine sector of the print mediascape. In the face of this trend, many in the magazine industry are moving to take matters into their own hands.

While bloggers and pundits proclaim print as dead, these magazine industry insiders are preparing to officially discredit these statements - which they dispel as "merely myths".

For one, the heavyweights of the magazine industry recently joined forces to proclaim that while the rest of print media may be on their last legs, magazines are very much alive and well.

On March 1, a joint announcement was made that the largest print advertising campaign ever created to promote the vitality of magazines as a medium is in the works. Essentially, the "Magazines, The Power of Print" campaign will work to curb the general public’s relative acceptance of a complete death of the print media industry.



In the promotional video, the leaders of five major magazine companies – Charles H. Townsend, Condé Nast; Cathie Black, Hearst Magazines; Jack Griffin, Meredith Corporation; Ann Moore, Time Inc.; and Jann Wenner, Wenner Media – can be seen advocating for the future of magazines.

Interestingly, one insider even proclaimed: “As long as those media continue to evolve and provide an irreplaceable value,” they will survive.

The "Magazines, The Power of Print" campaign will kick off in May 2010. The advertising-awareness campaign is scheduled to launch in "nearly 100 magazines, reaching 112 million readers per month, to promote the strength of-and consumer commitment to—magazines."

In order to achieve the utmost exposure, the advertisements will debut as full-colour spreads, strategically placed in May issues of the aforementioned publishers' most popular publications with attention-grabbing headlines: "We Surf the Internet. We Swim in Magazines." And "Will the Internet Kill Magazines? Did Instant Coffee Kill Coffee?"





In light of this latest undertaking, we must ponder both the logic behind and merit of such a public relations stunt. Further, we should be questioning why the magazine industry feels that it is necessary to proclaim their wellbeing while their fellow print media peers fall by the wayside.

Is an elitist personality emerging in the print mediascape? If so, is it warranted?

The so-called "Fox Effect"

Upon graduation from a radio and television program at Ohio University, Roger Ailes went on to work for The Mike Douglas Show. On the show's set in 1968, at the age 27, Ailes met then-presidential candidate Richard M. Nixon - a Republican.

According to The New York Times, Ailes told Nixon: "The camera doesn’t like you." In response, Nixon said that "It’s a shame a man has to use gimmicks like this to get elected." To this, Ailes offered a warning. "Television is not a gimmick," he said, "and if you think it is, you’ll lose again." Nixon's campaign team hired him within days.

Today, Ailes is the president of the remarkably successful Fox News Channel (FNC) and chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group. As of late, this network news broadcaster is known best for its unmistakable right-wing stance and "fair and balanced" slogan - which appears to exist solely for the purpose of infuriating Democrats.

Regardless of FNC's questionable antics, the network continues to draw the highest ratings of any American news network. This statistic begs the question: Is it possible for a cable news network to shape the politics of a nation?

For one, U.S. President Barack Obama seems to think so.

In October 2008, after his successful election win, Obama told The New York Times Magazine that the so-called “Fox effect” had robbed him of a couple of points at the polls.

Further, liberal pundit James Carville also noted that if Ailes were a Democrat, “there would be 67 Democratic senators right now.” Currently, there are 60.

So, what is this "Fox Effect"?

Well, this term speaks of the major impact the FNC's introduction into the American mediascape has had on the practice of domestic politics throughout the United States and news coverage by other industry competitors.

When directly questioned on the notion of a "Fox Effect", Ailes responded, even with all of the vast options for news sources in the American mediascape, "This little cable channel called Fox is somehow ruining your life?"

(Note: This post pertains to Segment 3 of 5. Segment 3 starts at 14:15).


Regardless of Ailes's opinion on the issue, according to The Telegraph, he remains on the 100 Most Influential Conservatives in America. In fact, on the 2010 list, he came in at an impressive seventh.

Interestingly, despite hefty criticism from the more liberal-leaning members of the American media, David Gergen, a senior political analyst for CNN, only had kind words for Ailes.

"Regardless of whether you like what he is doing," Gergen said, "Roger Ailes is one of the most creative talents of his generation. He has built a media empire that is capable of driving the conversation, and, at times, the political process."

While the work of citizen media is certainly up and coming, it is clear that the mainstream news networks continue to maintain a grip on public opinion. This is because even today it appears that their broadcasts continue to have success in swaying the masses one way or the other.

Undoubtedly, such a reality only reinforces the need for the voices of citizen journalists in the public sphere.