The YouTube video sensation is proving to be an unstoppable force in the world of journalism, especially in the context of world leaders and politicians. What can be a powerful tool and useful ally for those that get it right can also manifest itself as a dangerous opponent for those who do wrong.
YouTube is inescapable, dictators have attempting to restrict access by monitoring and blocking the internet and arresting those who post antigovernment messages. These attempts have largely been unsuccessful in stopping the onslaught of YouTube journalism. In the same way that embarrassments happening on a night out are inevitably destined for YouTube, so too are the political embarrassments from around the world.
The simple fact is that cameras are now everywhere. Where there are people, there are cameras. Approximately a third of the world’s population has a mobile phone and most of those come with cameras, poised ready to catch people at their best and worst then quickly tell the world about it.
Government crackdowns have instigated cyber wars in countries such as Egypt and Iran. Mostly, the civilians are winning the “geek off” that is taking place, using untraceable proxy servers to get their message out and avoiding capture.
Barack Obama has certainly reaped the benefits of this aspect of social media, not only during the election campaign, but also after he became president. In January 2011 he appeared on the latest offering which is YouTube World View, where the public post questions to be answered by the politician in question. Obama gave a lengthy 40 min video response and was largely appreciated according to the current stats -1,640 likes; 709 dislikes.
David Cameron followed suit in February although this ploy was not quite as successful for the British prime minister. He received 896 likes and a staggering 2,203 dislikes for his 25 minute video.
Twitter has become a remarkably powerful, yet double-edged tool for politicians and election candidates. With this use of social media they can get their message across to a huge percentage of voters that would be otherwise uninterested in the voting procedure, or in some cases, would have never heard about them in the first place. It gives a sense of accessibility to the citizens, makes the government seem more transparent, and ultimately pulls in more votes. Yet Twitter is a double-edged sword for the rulers of countries. Like a sword it can also work against them, sometimes in a decapitating fashion.
One senator who certainly used Twitter.com to his advantage is now known as President Barack Obama. In between the 3rd and 4th of November 2008, the day of his election, he reportedly gained an extra 2,865 new followers on Twitter.
Other politicians like Gia Raimondo, Treasurer of Rhode Island give the public access to information via www.Twitter.com. She regularly updates her followers with financial news and the current state budget, giving a more transparent and democratic feel to the way the state is governed.
Twitter has also been the effective tool of those working against the government. The most prolific involvement in civil uprisings was during the protests in Egypt that saw the resignation of Mubarak. Even though the country had its internet completely shut down, its people could still send messages via Twitter. Social media was a phenomenally huge factor in the Egyptian revolt and vitally important to the protestors, 85,000 of which had previously used Facebook to organize a national antigovernment protest.
After their internet was shut down Google engineers scratched their chins, trying to come up with an idea to get through to the isolated citizens of Egypt. They accomplished this task in just one weekend, with help from a small team of Twitter engineers and a company called SayNow, the name of which being a big clue.
They developed the idea of speak-to-tweet which provides 3 international phone numbers that anyone can call and leave a voice message on. Their messages can be heard at www.twitter.com/speak2tweet
LinkedIn is a professional networking site that allows members, of which 1 million join per week, to build up contacts in their given field or industry. Once a contact network is built through linking relevant people together, members can then use the site to find jobs, people and business opportunities recommended to them by others in their contact network. It also allows users to research the companies they are interested in, giving stats on such things like male/female employee ratios, percentages of the various positions held within a company, and lists of current and past employees. It has been referred to as “Facebook for grownups”.
LinkedIn was recently blocked in China where there are strict controls over what citizens can view online. It seems China have increased the level of filtering in response to the wave of uprisings across the Middle East.
Governments overlook the importance of social medial at their peril. Failure to act responsibly, in general and when specifically dealing with social networks and their access, can lead to the ultimate downfall of a regime. Social networks have become the latest popular channels for dissent, replacing on-the-ground leaders and word of mouth. Social media reaches a huge percentage of the national population and the international community, its messages can gain support from tens of thousands of people in a matter of days.
For this reason it would be unwise for any government to overlook the impact of social media. Yet, they need to tread delicately. Those regimes that have been too heavy handed in terms of social network access have ultimately been beaten by the techno-geeks and eventually overthrown. This somehow, is unsurprising. After all, the government are playing on their turf now.
Facebook has perhaps been one of the biggest vehicles for mass revolt in recent times. Uprisings such as those in Tunisia, Egypt and Bahrain have actually been referred to as "Facebook Revolutions". Indeed, Facebook has been instrumental and vitally important to the cause of protestors in many countries. Through facebook they can organise demonstrations and protests, not only this but they effectively advertise the protests to thousands of people suffering from similar conditions to themselves, increasing support dramatically.
Some would claim that these protests would not even be possible without social media instruments such as Facebook. There's a photograph from Tunisia at bbc.co.uk/radio1 which shows a wall graffitied with the words "Thankyou Facebook". During the protests journalists and reporters were prevented from covering any scenes of uprising. Facebook wasn't.
The main disadvantage with your garden variety Facebook revolution day is that everybody can see it. Not only do would-be protestors take an interest in their plans for civil revolt, the governments are quite keen as well. It is especially problematic when announcing exact dates and times along with telling the general public exactly where the riot (or civil movement) is going to take place. Obviously any aspiring government Columbo worth half his salt could work out where to put all the policemen with the guns and batons. Announcing a revolution day on Facebook is a bit like announcing a party on Facebook – it could quickly turn into an organized free-for-all.
At least if they tell the police and the government where the revolt is happening it means they don't need to bother tapping their phones, which saves them some money.