There’s been a ton of discussion about the role of social media in the protests ensuing on the Iranian election. Two notable posts are those by Rosanna Ryan at ABC Online and my QUT colleague Terry Flew at his eponymous blog. Flew writes:
1. The West is not behind these protests. Iranians are making their own judgements, and taking matters into their own hands. Barack Obama’s foreign policy strategy in the region was premised upon the idea that he would still be dealing with Ahmadinejad after the election, who was the devil they knew. The U.S and others like Britain are basically playing catch up, and decidedly unsure on whether to support the uprising;
2. Blogging, You Tube, Twitter and other social media have been central to getting the message out to the wider world. The idea that this is all apolitical fluff that is about following Ashton Kulcher around and “are not terms that signal any form of collective intelligence, creativity or networked socialism [but] are directives from the Central Software Committee” (to quote a recent pooh-poohing manifesto from the land of Digital Media High Theory) is actually being exposed in a sharp light on the streets of Teheran right now;
3. The mainstream media are not a monolith in relation to these matters. Several people have commented on the appalling lack of coverage on the U.S. cable networks, the BBC has been great, as has The Guardian and the New York Times news blog The Lede. Moral: don’t write off media outlets that invest in serious coverage of international affairs. Bloggers are not filling this gap at this stage.
I’m not certain that anyone has been writing off the MSM coverage in toto. It’s very rare that Australian media organisations these days fund good foreign correspondents, but clearly the quality of the reporting from a number of media outlets, particularly some of the British ones, is very high. It seems to me a mistake on either side to reduce this sort of thing to a dichotomised opposition between journalists working in the media and citizen activists and those who mediate their contributions. I think also this sort of dichotomy tends to get confused and conflated in value judgements made about the respective validity of bloggers and citizen journalists in countries with repressive regimes and countries like this one. That’s the case both on the left – say, with Antony Lowenstein to some degree, and certainly on the right – as with David Burchell.
One of the cautions worth noting with this event is that while there is validity in the argument that blogs and social media can play a really positive role in countries with repressive regimes, we also tend to miss the fact that a lot of blogs (for example in Egypt) are full of misogynistic, violent and narrow minded ranting, which would be most distasteful to most Western readers. There’s a tendency to pick up on the ones written by educated middle class folk, particularly those that express themselves in English. It would be wise to exercise some prudence in extrapolating only from those blogs, or from the Twittersphere.
There is actually a lot of dissatisfaction with Ahmadinejad outside the middle class for basically economic reasons. But I’d be wary about making too quick a judgement about whether the protesters, twitterers etc. are representative of Iranian opinion more generally. That, of course, is not to say that their cause, insofar as that cause can be identified with democratisation and liberty, is not worthy of our support. Of course, it is.
The other comment I’d make is that Netanyahu would be quite happy to have Ahmadinejad stay, because the ability to portray him as a dangerous lunatic actually serves the interests of the Israeli state, and for that matter, those other governments who want strong action on the nuclear issue. International realpolitik also needs factoring into the analysis of any political upheaval.
Related post on LP: Open and links post on the Iranian election.
Elsewhere: Andrew Bartlett.
Update: Via Terry Flew, an article in the Graudian about the reliability and ambiguity of the information coming from Iran through social media.
I don’t know what to make of the events currently being reported in Iran.
However, I am old enough to remember the murder of protesters at Kent State University in the US (by the National Guard), and the riots at the Chicago Democratic Convention, which involved wholesale and brutal attacks against US citizens by both the police and the National Guard.
The point being that brutal repression of dissent is not a feature unique to totalitarian theocracies, but can happen in any society where the power elite feels sufficiently threatened, and this has happened in the US in particular, and on more than one occasion.
Why single out the US ? Well, apparently the US has been spending significant money, (at least US$175 million) since 2007 in Iran as “U.S. funding to destabilize the Iranian regime” – as reported here , by the National Iranian American Council.
This does not inspire any confidence in me that what is happening is in fact a “grassroots” revolt against cruel oppressors.
Maybe this is the wrong thread ?
Pterosaur, I am not sure what the relevance of the US money is. Iran funds all sorts of propaganda vehicles in all sorts of countries too and we;be hard pressed to call anyone in opposition to the current US or Australian regime, somehow affected by it. The point is that the Iranian regime was based on a certain degree of legitimacy, gained through presidential elections. However controlled the selection of candidates is, the actual elections have to date been basically free. They have now crossed that line, in the process losing legitimacy and enraging the masses. There were hundreds of thousands of people demonstrating in Tehran yesterday, as the direct result: these are not Mousavi freaks, these are people who are witnessing their country slide into a crude dictatorship and who feel that today may be their last chance to stop that.
You may be right Ilya – and if so, I hope the Iranian people succeed, but I don’t think that the US was supporting fluffy kittens in Iran, and they do have a long history of using such funds to corrupt self determination, and not only in the ME.
Hence my scepticism.
BTW are you suggesting that somehow Iran’s propaganda machine matches that of the US ?
Has anyone considered the fact Mousavi lost fair and square?
Have you considered that it might not be a fact?
I’d actually prefer it if comments focused on the social media stuff that’s the main thrust of the post. The open thread is available for discussion of the election result and so on. Thanks!
Twitter goss
There was an interesting article on interpreting the tweets coming from Iran at The Atlantic by Marc Ambinder.
Which I found via Twitter
Update: Via Terry Flew, an article in the Graudian about the reliability and ambiguity of the information coming from Iran through social media.
The U.S and others like Britain are basically playing catch up, and decidedly unsure on whether to support the uprising
.
I really wish they’d make the suits in the UK and the US read a book called How The World Wouldn’t Be Quite So Fucked If People Like You Were Just Basically Decent!!!!.
.
Um I’m not sure what to say Bob. About the upsiring Bob. Should I support people who’re protesting the hijack of an election by an anti-Semitic nutbag? Or not?
.
I know! I’ll just go out there and talk about Freedom and how great we are!
I agree about not writing off MSM coverage. Going by posts on twitter it seems safe to say that cable news in the USA has left much to be desired, especially in the first instance after the election. However, having ‘joined’ twitter a couple of months ago i can see how useful it is as not just a primary source of information, but also as a good guide to some of the better pieces across all genres of ‘media.’ In other words, i would RT Too Cool to Fight Feminist Ozblogger@9.
I think this situation has provided a good case study of the need for people to have strong critical evaluation skills. There are so many different perspectives, MSM v bogs/social, genuine Iranian protesters v the not so genuine, there is so much to be gained if one is able to effectively judge the value of each contribution.
Personally i’m fascinated by the dynamic on twitter of people outside of Iran looking to help those inside. I couldn’t vouch for how successful or necessary some of the efforts are but i think it is worthy to note the campaign to have twitter suspend their upgrade to 1:30am in Tehran and to get people to send proxies via direct messages to Iranians, the later effort as much focused outside of twitter as in. The bottom line for me is that twitter, blogs, msm, youtube, whatever else; all media should be consumed together.
Twitter lets politicians make a fool out of themselves – just like any other form of media. The big difference is that Twitter is far, far quicker. Courtesy of Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI):
I guess Christian Kerr has been dealing with some chilly days down South – just like the millions who died on the Kolyma highway. No wonder he’s quite the expert on Stalinism.
I don’t know that I’d say the U.S. is “playing catch-up”, but rather continues to pursue its standard line of support for self-determination, regardless of Pterosaur’s funding caveat. (Just because the U.S. funds individuals, groups, and activities towards the destablistation of Ahmadinejad, doesn’t mean they aren’t legitimate in and of themselves. Kent State and the Chicago DNC riots don’t nearly approach the repressive activities of totalitarian regimes, and Ahmadinejad more nearly approaches Pinochet than he does Allende.) The evident scale of the protests looks more like the overthrow of the Shah than anything else. As for the MSM, what with the cavalier ease with which governments like Iran’s throw journalists into prison, it’s almost surprising we’re getting anything other than blogs and twitter.
Robert Fisk from The Independent is reporting that he is finding it quite easy to get around Teheran, and he can’t work out what some of the other foreign correspondents are complaining about.
Linked text
A lot of stories are circulating about the reluctance of the security forces to take action against the protestors, who are in many cases friends and family.
Terry that is older information. Since then all foreign reporters have had their press pass visa’s revoked. The ABC reporter has left the country, gladly, because of his safety fears. I would be surprised if Fisk is still there now, as well.
Not wanting to minimise the risks involved,but don;t foreign reporters actively seek out conflict zones? If their job was just hanging around hotel lobbies reporting on Arab League summits or communiques from the European Union, there wouldn’t be much of a mythology surrounding it.
Greg @ 14
” the U.S. …… continues to pursue its standard line of support for self-determination”
Just as they have done in Palestine, Chile, Venezuela, and Iran in the past ?
Just to mention a few instances – there are plenty of other examples of such “support”.
“Just because the U.S. funds individuals, groups, and activities towards the destablistation of Ahmadinejad, doesn’t mean they aren’t legitimate in and of themselves.”
Perhaps not, however, it does at least warrant at least a degree of scepticism on the part of an observer, IMHO.
For instance, (by analogy) how welcome, or credible in domestic Oz politics would be an organisation funded by (say) China, in order to destabilise our government and/or system of government.? I have a strong suspicion that any such organisation and the individuals involved would find themselves at the very least under the “devoted” attention of ASIO or some other agency of Australia’s security forces.
“Kent State and the Chicago DNC riots don’t nearly approach the repressive activities of totalitarian regimes”
Don’t they ? How do they differ, except in degree? And we all understand that the “body count” method of evaluating action(s) is bankrupt, do we not ?
“Ahmadinejad more nearly approaches Pinochet than he does Allende”
A strange example, given that it was the US which funded Pinochet’s coup against Allende – not that I disagree, I just don’t think that is a meaningful observation in this context.
I prefaced my first comment by stating that I didn’t know what is going on in Iran – still don’t, at least in terms of whether this is a grassroots exercise, or meddling by an imperialist US.
I suspect both issues are at play, and for we foreign observers to categorically state one way or the other at this stage is being both presumptuous and gullible.
Similarly, I am not confident that all the “twittering” is not also being manipulated by external agencies (to Iran), hoping to foster increased instability over the elections.
Oh hell, yes, Terry@17. They are not just there for the ghahveh. Fisky and co will be back in town once they slip into their press issue burqa.
Pterosaur, how is degree not relevant to a comparison? If a cop shoots someone, is that the same as the National Guard shooting into a crowd, and is that the same as killing hundreds, thousands?
How is the comparison to Pinochet not apt? Yes, the US funded Pinochet. In this case, funding goes against him – shouldn’t that be perceived as a positive? So intent on demonising the imperialist US, you’d prefer to say you know nothing about what’s going on in Iran while with the same breath claiming it’s interference.
As for foreign interference in other nations by despotic regimes, do you think they don’t? How naive. They are, perhaps, less successful, by-and-large, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t trying.
Twitter manipulation seems an unlikely scenario, but you go ahead and believe whatever you want. You will anyway.
Greg (sockpuppet ?)
“Twitter manipulation seems an unlikely scenario”
To whom ?
In any event, evidently not impossible .
An epic fail in logic for you for :
“how is degree not relevant to a comparison? If a cop shoots someone, is that the same as the National Guard shooting into a crowd, and is that the same as killing hundreds, thousands?”
Short answer – YES, in terms of the morality of the action, which is what I alluded to.
I won’t bother replying to your other assertions about my views, as they are largely evidence free, and irrelevant, in common with most of your “contributions” whether posted as Greg, or GregM.
The Kent State parallel is instructive.
From a political point of view its significance was the widespread response of students across the US. More than 400 campuses were closed by strike action.
There was a huge and violent demonstration in Washington DC which involved arson and looting.
The 82nd Airborne was on station in the basement of the Washington Executive Building with orders to defend key assets.
Yet the 82nd Airborne was never set into action against the demonstrators largely because the demonstrators did not attempt to overthrow the Nixon regime.
Rather, the demonstrators had more modest aims of demanding that the Nixon regime desist in its actions in SE Asia.
Cool heads prevailed in the Nixon administration and the 82nd Airborne were stood down.
Are Iranian demonstrators about to attempt to overthrow the current regime? Does the current regime know how to modulate its use of force? Time will tell.
Kent State was an aberration. Secret police harrassment, mass disappearances, round-ups and secret executions are a known tool of tyrranies, employed frequently and for the suppression of dissent. Kent State occured in the midst of and did nothing to disrupt the course of popular protest against a corrupt and repressive government, which was, if only by its own malfesence, removed from office.
I have no knowledge of and am not anyone who ever called himself “GregM”. Neither am I an inance conspiracy theorist.
A passing acquaintance with the US governmental system would enable Greg to avoid his historical mistake.
The actual shootings at Kent State were not a US Fedral government responsibility. On the contrary, the Ohio National Guard were under the orders of the Governor of Ohio.
And then this:
Nixon wasn’t “removed”. Nixon resigned.
In truth, the Kent State shootings ramped up nation-wide protests. As I indicated above, the Federal Government took military steps to confront demonstrators and radical activists by mobilising the 82nd Airborne. Moreover, Nixon took steps to implement the Huston Plan, which required illegal actions by various federal agencies.
What may have happened if the 82nd Airborne had opened fire on the Washington demonstrators is anyone’s guess.
Interestingly, J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI and a man not renowned for his concern for civil liberties, refused to obey Nixon’s illegal orders. I was referring to these events (perhaps too telegraphically) when I mentioned “cool heads”. Hoover’s head was very clear and very cool in these circumstances.
I wonder if there are similar cool heads in present-day Iran.
I’d like to see some commentary – perhaps a new post – about the latest turn that events in Iran are taking, i.e. a show trial for a prominent minister from the previous administration (Abtahi), who has been coerced into “confessing” that the accusations of vote fraud were just a conspiracy to stir up riots. I think Ahmadinejad and his allies have gone too far with this and that this has destroyed the system’s final chance to save itself. It’s one thing to have show trials for junior officials and members of the public, but Abtahi was part of the previous government. The system has devolved into a mere junta and it’s now doomed.