The above interview is with Curtis Brown about his article (written with Diana Allan) The Mavi Marmara at the Frontlines of Web 2.0 in the Autumn 2010 edition of the Journal of Palestine Studies. It looks critically of what many in the blogosphere are doing, including us here at Mondoweiss, and says that social media and blogs are not necessarily influencing the discourse and coverage of more mainstream media outlets as much as we might hope. From the interview:
Well, one of the ideas that my co-author and I were critiquing, or examining with a certain amount of skepticism, is the idea that social media is intrinsically leveling. To take one particularly salient example for the present case is the idea that because video is cheap to produce and free to distribute via You Tube that, therefore, grassroots use of video clips by media activists can compete on a level playing field against a state owned PR apparatus with a well oiled machine and influential lobby.
The videos of the Mavi Marmara attack, edited by the IDF, were promoted by Israeli spokespeople and commentators. They enjoyed almost, kind of, incessant reruns on American news and cable stations. They existed against a background machinery of promotion. The footage of activists and independent journalists and so on, you could say then, was promoted by progressive independent media, by Democracy Now and so on.
So, in other words, traditional preexisting networks of influence and material resources determine to a great extent the reach and impact of social media. And when large vested interests are involved, viral phenomenon can rock the boat but they are not going to capsize it.
Even more interesting is the idea that social media doesn't actually enter the traditional media, but rather runs parallel to it. Again from the interview:
We could take, for example, Max Blumenthal. He is an excellent independent journalist who works in the blogosphere and on twitter. He did force a few Israeli retractions with regards to the flotilla attack. These then were reported by Robert Mackey’s blog in the New York Times and this, Blumenthal claimed and other commentators claimed, was a major breakthrough for pro-Palestinian, grassroots media activism.
But what gets lost there is that Mackey’s blog is almost entirely devoted to meta commentary about what goes on in the new media. It’s viral videos, mashups, internet memes. So that an important story about the official Israeli narrative being contradicted or undermined, or even disproved in some cases, that sits side by side with the story about the “Bed Intruder Rant” being turned into a music video through Auto-Tune and then it becomes a viral on You Tube.
Neither of these stories, then, migrate to the news pages or the print edition of the New York Times. In other words, you could say that what goes on in social media has become a circumscribed arena within the mainstream press. It is something that is reported on for an enthusiastic sub audience that is interested in this, the way that sports, technology news, and pop news are reported. It has become an arena in itself.
One of the things that we say in this paper, one of the ideas that we suggest, is that if the Mohammed al-Dura video were coming out now in this media climate, rather than a decade ago, that it might rip through the blogosphere and onto Robert Mackey’s desk and not get noticed by the news pages.
Not sure what I think about this quite yet (I think the characterization of Mackey's work at the Times, and its news function, is incorrect for one), but I'll wait to comment once I've read their full piece. In the meantime, certainly something to think about.
How to explain the polls showing fewer people buying into Israeli PR? Doesn’t the Internet/Alternative Media figure into this?
I don’t think that there are “fewer people buying into Israeli PR,” I think that fewer people are realizing that silence is required.
MJ Rosenberg wrote a few weeks ago that for the first time in his life, he realized that anti-semitism is possible here in the US. I think he’s accurate. I think he was right to sound the alarm. But he didn’t discuss what creates it: enforced silence on the subject of Israeli or Jewish matters among the far greater number of Gentiles. ADL edicts. AIPAC smears. Reputations destroyed (there better not be anymore Helen Thomas’ or there will be hell to pay.) All that.
Mondoweiss is a profound buffer against that actuality at the moment, and against the 20th C idea that ‘no news is good news’. What Phil promotes here is open dialogue, even uneven dialogue, and at times colloquy that borders on what 10 years ago would have been considered anti-semitic.
It’s like letting a boil dissipate. When a boil comes to a head, it bursts, naturally. The poison has to seep. But that seepage is nothing compared to what would happen to the body politic if the poisoned blood and pus were forced to remain inside.
As this issue goes mainstream, we’re going to encounter rocky inappropriate moments, as we are currently by having a Black President. (Some astoundingly ugly stuff said and worse, implied, about Blacks since Obama became President. Truly repulsive. Takes your breath away.) But this is the clearing out time. This is what happens when we weed our collective consciousness, and reset the national acceptance of our collective humanity.
That’s not necessarily a negative.
The ultimate question is what function does “alternative” media fulfill in today’s world? Is it intended to inform? Is it intended as a form of creative expression? Is it intended as a political outlet for people to vent their dissatisfaction with certain policies? Is it intended to be a mobilizing force for the masses?
Once these questions are answered one can move on to examine the impact of said media.
I believe it’s safe to say that websites that focus on politics and social issues seek to change current conditions. As such, the question becomes, are decision makers influenced by the media and to what extent are they influenced?
Avi, as I see it, the decision makers are mostly influenced by 1) money/campaign contributions and 2) public opinion in the form of communications from their constituents. As for media influence, they are probably far more influenced by the MSM than by independent internet websites such as this one. The Lobby provides plenty of both and can mobilize an avalanche of either at at the drop of a hat. How, then, to compete? I can write letters/emails but I don’t have much cash to spare… But we need people to organize us into action. We need to find the pressure points and apply pressure. We need to get op eds by Phil and others into the MSM far more often. (I still recall how happy I was when CNN online put up an article by Ali Abunimah a few months ago about the bankruptcy of the “peace process.”)
“In other words, you could say that what goes on in social media has become a circumscribed arena within the mainstream press. It is something that is reported on for an enthusiastic sub audience that is interested in this, the way that sports, technology news, and pop news are reported. It has become an arena in itself.”
This is someting I’ve been worrying about. These great sites (like Mondoweiss) have lots of enthusiastic readers/posters, but how much can/do we impact the thinking of the average citizen? Are we–as the author asserts–merely “an enthusiastic sub audience?”
Or a choir rotating our members up to the pulpit?
Ideas, attitudes and new perspectives travel from person to person as cultural memes. They get internalized in a way that any brand marketing exec is familiar with. It is essentially repetition, fulfilment of desire to appear sucessful, and last, but not least – peer pressure.
Memes that Mondoweiss is shaping and spreading are entering wider circles of subconscious in general public. The more vocal we are in stating our position to other people, the quicker ” everybody knows” moment arrives.
smart, thanks eva
Anti-Zionism with an emphasis on kindness.
This is the power of public demonstrations, marches and the like, and on this zionists can’t compete. People understand a march against oppression, racism and apartheid, but a pro-Israel march against “delegitimisation” is a cumbersome, clumsy idea. A pro-Israel march is invariably a pro-apartheid march, and every bit as distasteful as a neo-nazi or KKK march, on account of being ever so close ideologically.
i don’t agree w/him. while msm has largely gone unchanged there’s a strong underlying current of change in people’s perceptions of what’s going on.
compare today to the 60′s where there was virtually no comparable social media to what we have today. any other narrative other than exodus had to be sought out. today we have 60 minutes covering EJ, albiet not as ‘balanced’ as we’d like.
but more importantly my son doesn’t watch the news on tv and neither do his friends. sure, most americans are uniformed but to have a realistic idea of the effects of what’s going on today wait a few years. we have a generation that is unlikely to have any awareness of irsael that doesn’t include palestinians in a big way. we have a generation that is unlikely to have any awareness of irsael that doesn’t include at a minimun the idea of apartheid in a big way. that was practically unheard of a decade ago.
when the kids in highschool today hit their 30′s not a one of them will be like me in my 30′s. i had not even heard of a palestinian. mountains don’t move in a day or a week or a month, they move in a generation. a generation that is already well on it’s way, one that doesn’t get there news from the tv, they get it from the internet.
i didn’t mean uniformed i meant uninformed. and i agree w/eva.
And I agree with eva and annie. Still, it’s really frustrating to see how little objective data gets out to the US mass audience when it comes to US foreign policy regarding Israel and its impact over the decades. I think the Wikileaks guy has the best “soft conspiracy” model for why this is, and the board, nails, and string of it. His counter operation is so tied in with internet quickening the Ah-Hah moment of “Everybody knows.” or at least suspects.
RE: The New Hasbara’s competition:
“Increasingly important among the new media platforms are blogs—especially ones by dissident American Jews such as Philip Weiss at Mondoweiss and Richard Silverstein at Tikun Olam. Weiss has helped to establish and nurture an online community of mainly Jewish writers that speaks with a refreshing clarity about Israel’s occupation and the power of the Israel lobby in the U.S. Silverstein, meanwhile, has broken several important stories about Israel leaked to him by Israeli journalists who could not report the issues themselves because of the increasing use of gag orders and censorship.
The readership for these overseas blogs, including among Israelis, is steadily rising. The sites are also freeing Israeli bloggers to become more outspoken: they can relay back to Israeli audiences information from foreign websites without the risk of being first to break censorship rules.
Also making an impact is the slow rise of non-Western media in English.”
link to jkcook.net
Weiss has helped to establish and nurture an online community of mainly Jewish writers
thankfully palestinian writers too.
“refreshing clarity!”
That’s us!
Snippet from a summary of the latest Wikileaks and its impact on the New World Order:
“In the cables sent from Tel Aviv, a similar fatalism reigns. The possibility that Israel might go it alone and attack Iran is contemplated as though it were an event Washington has no hope of preventing. US largesse of billions of dollars in annual aid and military assistance to Israel appears to confer zero leverage on its ally’s policies.” link to jkcook.net
Cook’s piece makes an insightful comment that I feel is relevant to this observations in this article:
“The new Wikileaks disclosures will help to dent those assumptions. If a small group of activists can embarrass the most powerful nation on earth, the world’s finite resources and its laws of nature promise a much harsher lesson.”
I agree largely that social media still occupies a subculture on the internet, rather than being generally exposed to the masses, a crucial element for success in any sort of activism. But though it is unproven, I do believe it is premature to write off its potential and power for impacting public opinion especially witnessing the waves Wikileaks is currently making.
Eva’s point is well-taken, although it’s a long road.
I won’t argue with Curtis Brown’s definitions but I think his analysis is missing an important part: access to elites.
Mondoweiss et al may be a subculture, but this sunculture is not like the trivial examples he references. This one is read by elites. One recent example that showed up on Mondo was Fania Oz-Saltbereger. Her op-eds get published on the homepage of Haaretz and she took the time to comment on Adam Horowitz’s (I think?) blog.
Since elites shape public opinion, this subculture, very quickly gets out to the general public. Either the elites support it, or attack it. Cites such as Mondoweiss crtainly confer legitimacy on views – perhaps still in parallel to the mainstream option – that were discredited only a short time ago.
I agree. You guys pull no weight because you talk amongst yourselves and produce things for your own consumption.
I mean, when you actually believe this: “We could take, for example, Max Blumenthal. He is an excellent independent journalist who works in the blogosphere and on twitter”, that says it all.
Max is what most of you are, an activist who practices advocacy journalism, stretches the truth regularly. and is basically incapable of seeing any viewpoint besides his own.
Very interesting insights on social media. I took a class this semester social media’s impact on communication and the professor argued quite the opposite of what was said by this guy.
The issue of whether Mondoweiss and other non-MSM blogs are impacting public opinion about I-P is an easily researchable question. Let’s hope somebody does their doctoral thesis on this question so we can find out. Heard a snippet of debate today re: the Gaza assault on WMBI Christian radio today, with one presenter arguing the immorality of that action; he was even permitted to mention the use of white phosphorus against civilians and the “indiscriminate targeting” of sites such as hospitals and schools. To hear this from a major evangelical Christian station (Moody radio) was amazing and unprecedented (so far as I know).