Group items tagged

Very Interesting article. Here I am reminded of Jean Baudrilliard and "Simulacra & Simulation". In it, he talks about how the media shapes the way viewers understand. Effectively he suggests war as it shown on television, was a manufactured by media represention. "The media and the official news service are only there to maintain the illusion of an actuality… of the objectivity of the facts. All events are to be read backward." (Baudrillard, 1994, p.38) Like most things, with recent events in Egypt, it is the media represented accounts, which have become the "real". The idea the Twitter and Facebook can mobilise a revolution is a powerful symbol. "What is perhaps the most telling here is that, as Bikyamasr points out, "millions of the Egyptians that went to the streets probably don't own a computer, and definitely were not checking Twitter or Facebook for where the next gathering was taking place." The article suggests that, by the time the internet was cut off, the protests were already in full swing. Perhaps the Egyptian Government fell for the media reports of the power of Social Media. "It was through word of mouth, not online calls for activism that brought the Egyptian government to its knees". It is important to point out that word-of-mouth is a powerful tool for communication, whether it is through hand-written messages, text or social media, word-of-mouth messages are more likely to be trusted and acted upon by recipients (see Kozinets et.al, 2010) as well as fostering a connection and sense of community between the sender and receiver. References Baudrilliard, J. (1994) Simulation and Simulacra. University of Michigan Press. Translated from the French by Sheila Faria Glaser. Kozinets. R., de Valck, K., Wojnicki, A. & Wilner, S. (2010, March). "Networked Narratives: Understanding Word-of-Mouth Marketing in Online Communities" in Journal of Marketing. 74(2). pp.71-89. Retrieved via American Marketing Association/Atypon.com, 13 April 2011. http://ww

Mayton seeks to address what he views as the Western Media attributing the Egyptian political revolution to the presence of activists online. He underlines that with only a quarter of the population having access to social networks and media online, the idea that a "Revolution 2.0" occurred is seriously flawed. While acknowledging the useful presence of collaboration online, Mayton attributes the success of this political change to a word-of mouth and paper handout campaign, combined with a motivated and committed Egyptian people, preferring to credit the Internet with bringing the issue to the forefront of international politics. However Wael Ghonim a leader of the ground movement that would ultimately topple Mubarak, contradicts the ideas presented in this article. Instead he accredits social networks and in particular facebook (ref) as being the catalyst behind the revolution. While Ghonim acknowledges that any political protest requires bodies on the ground, he attributes the internet and collaboration that occurred on facebook with empowering Egyptian individuals. Furthermore the ability of these networks to spread information at a vast rate, combined with the ability to go undetected were attributed to the success of the initial protest which began in April 2008. This protest organized solely online was the trigger cause for the unrest and the political change that would unfold. Mayton highlights that the common misconception that every Egyptian has direct access to the internet is perhaps symbolism for an Egyptian society that still remains stratified. While this paper underlines the idea that attributing the success of this political collaboration to the internet overlooks the ground work and alternative methods employed to help further this revolution, there can be little doubt that in this course of history social networks did provide empowerment for some of the Egyptian people and played a significant role in this advancing this political colla

To most Australians, the conflict in Egypt was not an Internet revolution until their newspapers, bulletin websites and television told them as such. Spurred on by Google Middle East and North Africa Marketing Director Wael Ghomin's announcement that the Egyptian protesters had "the internet to thank for their victory" (Luna, 2011), headlines across the globe were swept up by the 'Revolution 2.0' media darling. It may be a journalist's job to disseminate current affairs- constructing language and presenting palatable news to their public- however the truth and integrity of the Egyptian Uprising reports suffered at the hands of the outspoken. Jordanian expert on branding Ahmad Humeid recognises these synoptic "slogans" (Pickerill, 2011) such as 'Revolution 2.0' as "extremely important for Western media audiences... [to] take an event and package it in a certain light" (Humeid, 2011). Joseph Mayton's commentary works to detangle the internet's 'exaggerated' role in Egypt. He presents the facts: 25 per cent of Egyptians have no access to a computer, let alone a wifi connected iPhone in their back pocket. The 'Online Revolution' label directly discounts the internet "have-nots" who "struggled for the same cause under the same umbrella". Finally, activists continued to mobilise, even during the four days the Government shut down the Internet service (Mayton, 2011). Yes, there was a significant initial online role in the January protests, but this article encourages that we cannot lump strong-willed street activism in its hundreds of thousands as an Internet uprising. Mayton reminds us the well-worn lesson: we should not accept anything at face value. Ignorance is bred through the blind digestion of 'fact'; we can only come closest to the truth by negotiating as many disparate viewpoints as possible. References: Mayton, J. (2011) Egypt did not have an Internet Revolution. Published on BIKYAMASR, Feb

Although often overlooking the role of politicians in organizing online political collaboration, Sanson documents the crucial role that facebook played in galvanizing and motivating the millennial generation of voters to participate and engage in political debate throughout the 2008 election. There is an underlying theme throughout this paper that it was a case of peer -to-peer relationships that caused this revolutionary collaboration of young voters. Further highlighted is the ease with regards to facebook being an organizing tool, with social actions within the site being reflective of a ground based campaign and helping to form a new kind of politics(Sanson, 2008). Sanson ponders why it is that the youth vote has suddenly became more engaged in the political spectrum, considering factors outside of the political world; noting that both circumstance(BBC News,2008 ) and the timing of incidents over the last decade may well have instigated this youth movement. Yet it is crucially noted that the internet and particularly Facebook became a catalyst for this millennial collaboration, based not solely on political presence online but also the wealth of information and the free-flowing style of messages combined with the vast number of users(Facebook, 2011) and the ultimate chain reaction of a peer-to-peer connection. Noted throughout is the fact that this social network was used for more than just organization and a spear head of this political collaboration - highlighted is how it was used for financial muscle, as well as a tool for micro-targeting and the education of a younger generation on both the candidates and the political process. Throughout this academic paper a thorough explanation is offered as to the triggers of this millennial political collaboration which has led to a new dialogue being opened between the politicians and the voters, there can be no question that Facebook has revolutionized the way that political collaborations are conducte

The Internet has presented a medium for people to carry out 'liberal individualist' transactions with government agencies. In 2001, Microsoft announced that the internet will empower citizens "to set their own political agendas, establish government priorities and help implement policies" (Katz & Rice, 2002) and, as Angela Sanson's chapter explains, the 2007/8 United States elections rang this prediction true. Campaign finance was "just one of the many ways Obama's IT and social networking approaches revolutionised citizen participation" (Norquay, 2007): Evidence of internet incensed political dialogue, such as discussion forums, sites indicating support/non-support for parties and leadership (for example, President Obama's 1.7 million friends at the time), videos, art and news combine to create an increasingly potent role for the internet user. Obama endeavoured to "define his campaign by 'conversations' with the American people" (Westling, 2007), and in doing so, formed genuine connections which later translated into votes. As Westling recognises, Facebook is an ultimate campaign tool as it combines the "best features of local bulletin-boards, newspaper, and town hall meetings and places them in one location that is available at any time in practically any location" (2007). Many scholars have likened the transformative role of the Internet in political propaganda to that of television in the 1966 U.S. Election. The impact of the internet, however, far surpasses television because of the vast potential for individual empowerment. Instead of simply voting for themselves, citizens had the opportunity to actively contribute to political change in their peers. From the public's perspective, Facebook "gives amateur activists an easy way to connect with other citizens around the globe and helps them push their collective concerns to the top of political agendas" (Sanson, 2008). This same online influence was successfully em