As advocates and activists for the welfare of animals, and users of social media to help achieve those ends, I felt compelled to study the issues attendant to the Kony video campaign. Can we learn anything that will help our animals? What is the best role for social media in our work? We have responded to specific need requests such as pet food, calls to action involving legislative policies, event publicity and funding pleas. Clearly, social media activism is effective in communicating quickly with a lot of people and in asking for a specific thing such as spreading news, sending an email and providing cash for a project. But can this type of activism bring about sustained change such as ending famine, stopping war crimes or attitude adjustments that last and change our way of life. Is it becoming the easy "go to" tool in the box? Is there a danger that we will get lazy in our activism and let the "mice" do all the work? As a huge believer that there is never too much knowledge I was also startled by the reaction that giving people this information in the first place is not wise as it creates false expectations and dumbs down complex issues. Frankly, that scares me. I am already worried that so much information is filtered through the whims of celebrities. The cynical reality is that if a famous person speaks-more attention will be drawn to the message and the audience will obey. That is why charities seek such spokespeople. I worry about what critical news we are not hearing about simply because Justin Bieber doesn't find it of interest as he did in the Kony situation. I prefer to see everything and decide for myself what to worry about. I also believe there is a valid use of the medium for activists, but that it is not a short cut to the hard work required to ultimately attain our goals. So I wrote the piece below and would be most interested in your thoughts.
 |
| courtesy Google images |
The use of social media as an activist tool poses interesting questions. The
Joseph Kony video
is a great case study. The film, celebrity involvement, a charity,
Facebook, Twitter, and the ability to click and see the story of a
Ugandan war lord and his treatment of children on 100 million smart
phones sparked an international conversation. Debates over Ugandan
politics, the motives and legitimacy of the charity (Invisible Children)
who created the video, the frustration of
journalists
who reported the story 2 years ago to an apathetic audience, and
whether the actual facts were vetted properly – lit up the airwaves and
internet.
The
discussions
are useful. They serve as a natural fact checking process to determine
whether there is a real problem that needs addressing, whether this was a
fundraising manipulation by a charity, or both. Of course, more people
will watch the video than read assorted articles by experts in that
area, but, the information is out there to evaluate. Arguing whether
this method of messaging is over simplified, sensational, biased, and
bad for children is likewise useful as allows us to examine how we
receive, process and restate information to each other and to our
politicians. The celebrity factor is also at play here. Journalists
couldn’t get the story heard years ago yet with the nudge of a couple of
celebrity re-tweets it went viral. In other words, if the subject is
interesting to Justin Bieber or Rihanna, we are more likely to hear
about it.
The ultimate question seems to be whether or not this
type of activism is successful in effectuating positive change and
therefore should be replicated. Success is defined in the eyes of the
beholder. The goal of boosting awareness and raising funds is not the same as
actually arresting a war criminal and changing a political system. We
know the use of social media can succeed in achieving the former, but we
are not so sure about the latter. Additionally, one wonders how many
times it could work successfully before the responding clickers lose
interest or become desensitized to endless horrors and cause campaigns..
In October of 2010, Malcolm Gladwell published an article for
The New Yorker entitled “
Why The Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted”.
Comparing the civil rights movement in the 1960s, and other social
revolutions, Gladwell asks the same question. He describes the scene
where 4 black college students sat down at a “whites only” lunch counter
in Greensboro North Carolina and refused to leave their seats. The
restaurant would not serve them. More protesters gathered on their
behalf, sit-ins began and eventually 70,000 students were actively
involved in the protest. He argues that this type of “high risk
strong-tie” commitment is not created through social media platforms
which are built upon “weak-tie connections”. Gladwell goes on to say: “
Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real
sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when
they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice. We are a long
way from the lunch counters of Greensboro.”
It seems social media
activism is still evolving. Knowledge is critical. We need to know of a
problem to solve it. Now 100 million people know something. Critical
thinking about the information allows the vetting, analysis and
evaluation of the issue to occur. Then old school hard work must follow
to ultimately accomplish change. Documentation, constituency building,
organizing and developing strategic plans to implement reforms must also
occur.
Knowing is better than not knowing, but clicking is not enough action.
Article first published as Are Social Media Campaigns Like Kony Successful in Effecting Change on Technorati.
