Iran and Social Media
The power of technology to create a groundswell was shown in Iran this last week. People all over the world are seeing and hearing and reading what's going on with the protests over the recent elections and the response by the theocratic government.
One voice can start a community. Communities create stunning results. It's even more startling when it's a world community, from a top columnist for a US paper to the anonymous voice of an Iranian woman. Two voices on Iran:
Peggy Noonan's column, Whose Side Are We On? You Have to Ask?, points out:
"Twittering and YouTubing made the story take hold and take off. But did the technology create the rebellion? No, it encouraged what was there."
She goes on to say,
"Revolutions are revolutions and rebellions are rebellions; they don't work unless the people are for it. In Iran, Twitter reported and encouraged. But the conviction must be there to be encouraged."
Wisdom entrepreneurs take note. Noonan is saying that the technology is a tool that amplifies. But the voice must be there first, with conviction, and I would say, commitment.
The other voice is a simple but powerful one, one that tells the story with minimal words and photos. It paints a stark portrait that only those who are there can fully comprehend.
Note that this YouTube video was created on Friday, June 19, less than a day ago. This morning, at about 9:30am Mountain Time, when I first saw the video, it had 300+ views. I found it from a friend on Facebook who had posted the link (thanks, @kareanderson!) Now, several hours later, as I'm posting this, the video has over 1700 views. That's how fast we can connect now. When there is so much at stake, when we are compelled by history in the making, the ties between us are created with mind-boggling speed.
The following question has never been more important or pertinent:
What will you do with your voice?
Photos by .faramarz
Very good post, Carol.
Peggy Noonan’s article had one disturbing cliche about Americans always being “lovers of political freedom.” She obviously doesn’t know or conveniently forgets that the U.S. & Great Britain overthrew the first democratically elected government in the Middle East after WW II to illegitimately install the Shah of Iran to promote western interests (“All the Shah’s Men” by Stephen Kinzer details our nation’s role in the roots of Islamic extremism). Noonan references the Shah in her opening paragraph about how often the U.S. has gotten Iran wrong, including how we missed the revolution of 1979. Boy…have we ever gotten Iran wrong! Our nation and others have contributed to the mess in the Middle East for well over half a century by tampering.
The great hope is that social media may at last truly give people a voice and role in these issues – not just when it conveniently matches American interests of the moment. Perhaps cheap oil in the short term was a benefit to Americans & the UK, but the unintended consequences have done far more damage to countless lives in the ensuing years.
When Noonan made her historical references to the French Revolution – that such rebellions would have worked with or without social media, & social media might just encourage what’s there – I challenge her point. Yes, successful revolutions may not have turned out differently, but what if Twitter & YouTube existed nearly 50 years ago & the hijacking of Iran’s fledgling democracy had never happened?
America & Iran are paying the price for past illicit actions. Let’s hope that these new social media tools do even more than assist today’s Iran with its quest for democracy…but also protect ALL PEOPLE from tampering by ANYONE. And clearly Americans need their own reminders through tools like these of our culpability in past & present tragedies.
There’s a lot of layers to what’s going on here & the real solution is indeed about A Bigger Voice for all!
Thanks, Dave, for your thoughtful comments. While Noonan is an adroit commentator on human behavior and political motivations, she is not a social media expert. If you take a look at her Twitter feed, you’ll see that she has only cursory knowledge about how to use Twitter.
It’s hard to say how history would have been different if past revolutions had occurred with Twitter and other forms of social media in the mix. However, one thing that we know from how social media impacts us today is that it provides greater transparency in all processes. That means that covert, politically-driven actions are less likely to stay covert.
This goes back to top-down vs. bottom-up approaches. With bottom-up approaches becoming more feasible and quicker to implement, top-down approaches that are incongruent with the bottom-up voices have less power. That’s a biggie in today’s world. What’s happening in Iran is a great example of that.
Carol,
I think you should expand on the thought about the voice at the core vs. the tool. There’s so much hype out there about this story (Iran and Twitter) that taking an unique and thought provoking angle is important. We can say the voice needed first, and then the tool helps expand it. But with social media, sometimes the “voice” seems pretty dull and yet it takes off. The play between the core message and the medium requires more thought from people like you… Let me say it another way, if you (Carol) have a voice on the topic the more compelling unique it is the better. Hope this feedback helps.
Thanks, Herb, for pushing me to think deeper about the relationship between the core message and the medium. It’s part of the reason why the first phase of creating A Bigger Voice is Crystallizing. Without that unique and compelling voice (which often comes from our story), the chances that the voice will “take off” and create a community are virtually nil. It’s the equivalent of motherhood and apple pie. Unique? No. Compelling? No. But easy to voice, by anyone and everyone. I go back to the idea that if the message is unique AND compelling, it is rooted in your own human experience.
You mention voices that are “dull” and still take off. Those voices are ones that ride a wave and die out before a community can form. Viral does not mean you have the basis for a sustainable conversation/movement. You just have a lot of people talking about whatever for 15 minutes.