As the Israeli's didn't allow any press into the Gaza strip, we didn't have our formal “eyes and ears”. Instead both the Israelis and Hamas blasted the Internet with blogs, videos and Twitter to shape public opinion. The war was being fought on two fronts: on the ground and in cyber space. The Israel Defense Force maintains a YouTube channel and the Israel consulate in New York held a press conference exclusively on Twitter. For a while this 140-character-at-a-time medium seemed more important than the message: the chatter on Twitter got quite a bit of coverage. But now the dust has settled it seems that Israel was outsmarted on the Internet, not by Hamas, but by ordinary folks uploading real time reports. Despite its understanding of the Internet channel, superb technology and clever PR machine, the Israelis couldn't weigh in on the avalanche of blogs, videos and messages.
It used to be that we got our news neatly packaged from a limited number of sources such as CNN, Reuters and AP, now it comes from thousands of people, reporting on the ground as events unfold. These reports may be raw, grainy and emotional, but they can hit their target because they are more passionate and immediate.
Here are some examples of how Internet is being used to shape opinion. We Will Not Go Down (Song for Gaza) has been viewed on YouTube by over half a million people and has become the rallying cry at pro-Palestinian demonstrations. QassamCount, tracks the number of Qassam rockets fired into Israel by Hamas. It has both a Facebook and Twitter account that provides real-time updates. Yesterday, this was posted on Twitter: “5:22pm: 2 rockets hit Israel on Sunday after Hamas announced an immediate ceasefire #gaza”. (Note the #gaza, which is a so called “hashtag”, a tag or label that allows broadcasting of the message to the group “Gaza” so that everyone with an interest in the conflict can get this message.) Pictures of destruction by the Israeli army can be found on Flickr. On http://www.israel-vs-palestine.com/ anyone can vote on their position. While this reduces the conflict to it simplest black-and-white form and strips out any nuance, it prompted around 1M people to cast their vote. It is questionable what, if any, impact a site like this may have, but it is clear that we're seeing the first steps toward engagement with conflicts by using the Internet. Conflict 2.0 in its infancy.
I am currently working with European Center of Conflict Prevention and their partner NGO's, such as Oxfam/ Novib, Warchild and Cordaid, on a technology platform that aims to bring together information from the stakeholders: the different party's spokespersons, aid organizations, the press and observers on the ground. The objective is to give the fullest possible picture, provide analysis and prompt action, which may either help preempt conflicts or resolve existing ones. The platform should make it easy for people around the world to connect, exchange notes and to collaborate. We will leverage the same tools that play such important role in today's conflicts.
Last month, Machiel Salomons, an officer with UNHCR, wrote on my blog: “video footage is beamed nowadays through mobile phones to UN Agency heads in New York and Geneva. It helps decision makers, is instrumental in raising funds, mobilizes opinions and contributes towards an early resolution of major problems and challenges. Evidence is found in the fact that the world really has become a saver place.” While information technology is neutral, it can play a major role in resolving armed conflicts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The opportunities of new (web 2.0) based technology in news gathering confront us with some threats. People making mobile photos or videos, which are uploaded to Flickr, Youtube or other UGC-sites and fora, act like civil journalists. Information technology indeed is neutral, but can be used in many different ways. One might expect that a professional journalist will explain his story, tries to put stories of both sides in the right context, checks the facts and challenges his observations, asks the right questions and does some thorough research. I think international conflicts have become more complex. Professional journalism is becoming more and more a difficult job (with declining budgets….)
ReplyDeleteFurthermore it’s not always clear what you see. Everybody knows about the wellknown pictures from the past, which tell us a clear story: Holocaust, Berlin Wall or the famous Kim Phuc. But a child shot down, put on the Youtube channel of the Israel Army, will become another child when put on a Hamas-oriented website. When press isn’t allowed to enter the conflict zone, this civil journalism raises a difficult question. Who to believe?
Civil journalism isn’t always effective. At many public fora, political discussions end up in verbal violence. At Flickr and Youtube, our society is depicted as an enormous accumulation of moments in time, but is anyone capable of interpreting this? At Flickr, if you enter the keywords “Israelian victims”, than you will find thousands of pictures of Palestinian people carrying their wounded relatives, accompanied by explicit comments and tags.
So the real challenge for modern webbased and UGC-technology is not only to try to get the right nuances, but also to make a distinction in what kind of sources are reliable. It’s about what questions are asked, and what kind of reality is captured by whom and with what kind of intentions.
Despite all, web 2.0 offers a whole new world of opportunities. Mobile and civil journalism certainly is speeding up our information stream and indeed it is mobilizing opinions. We therefore should do more research on the reliability and risks of web 2.0 and about information retrieval and information judging competencies.
Of course we still want our news fact checked, analyzed and interpreted. No one would just rely on the plethora of blog and twitters that populate Cyber space. That's why we believe there is a need for an impartial online place where news is aggregated from news agencies (NY Times, Reuters, AP,..) as well as reliable sources (for instance UN, Red Cross, Oxfam workers on location) and source verification for others.
ReplyDeleteEen van de problemen met gegevens die door ‘het gewone volk’ worden opgestuurd is het waarheidsgehalte. En de propaganda van de strijdende partijen moet je al helemaal met veel zout nemen. Blijft over de hopelijk onafhankelijke verslaggever. Maar ook de NGO’s die overigens ook een belang hebben. Informatie verzamelen van verslaggevers en NGOs op een plek lijkt me een goed idee en dan kan je wellicht de ‘volksgegevens’ gebruiken als controle. Dat je hiermee een oorlog kunt voorkomen of stoppen, lijkt mij een wat naïef idee.
ReplyDeleteOorlogen worden niet gevoerd, of beëindigd omdat de informatie ontbreekt. Daar zijn andere redenen voor.
Een mooi voorbeeld is natuurlijk de oorlog tussen Hamas en Israel. Hamas wil Israel de zee in drijven (althans officieel), Israel wil graag overleven. Hoe dat er voor staat is redelijk duidelijk, daar heb je geen internet of moderne telefoons van het volk voor nodig. Althans ik niet. De enige vraag die ik nog heb is: Heeft Hamas inderdaad de bevolking gebruikt als schild.
Het volk zal daar ongetwijfeld een oordeel over hebben.
Stel dat we nu dat we alle ‘goede’ informatie hebben, zullen we dan in staat zijn om die oorlog tot een goed einde te brengen. De wereld opinie veroordeelt nu voor een groot deel Israel, op grond van de beschikbare informatie. Maar Israel trekt zich eigenlijk nauwelijks iets aan van die opinie, zo als ook het verleden aantoont, want ze wordt gesteund door de US.
Het gaat me er niet om wie er nu gelijk heeft in dit conflict , maar om aan te tonen dat het in een oorlog gaat om macht, informatie of niet.
Overigens de oorlog in Irak is ook een aardig voorbeeld, als het ging om informatie over het fabriceren van een atoombom.
Het is duidelijk dat ik het met Eric Brouwer eens ben, maar die heeft het wat eleganter verwoord
The Internet has democratized and made news publishing accessible to a wide audience. Blogs can present a balanced view against the sometimes biased and narrow coverage by an increasingly consolidating media. A strong personality (Arianna Huffington) and multi-channel distribution including NPR can leapfrog The Huffington Post to the top of information and momemtum rankings in the blog world and become the go to destination for political coverage on the web.
ReplyDeleteMavens (Tipping Point Malcolm Gladwell) can present ongoing coverage from respective countries. Credibility and Brand recognition established through consistent and unbiased reporting could alleviate identified reliability issues. Web 2.0 business models abound where individuals wanting to establish their brand freely contribute to both for profit and non-profit ventures. Collaborative filtering can further ensure that only the most reliable correspondent is featured. Further analysis can flesh out the proposal.
Independent observers shared recent images and videos with AP from the multi decade old Sri Lanka conflict. Journalists and most aid groups are blocked. The platform being created is clearly very relevant.
ReplyDeletehttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090202/ap_on_re_as/as_sri_lanka_civil_war
The platform will be relevant, no doubt. But how to choose between a institution with a certain history and acknowledgement (like the NYT or The Guardian, or for others: Bild Am Sontag) and one platform, suggested by one (or a group of) person(s)? This is the real challenge of web 2.0 news channels that are based upon civil journalism. It's a new approach that needs many years (perhaps a generation) to prove itself.
ReplyDeleteI agree there are credibility challenges with web 2.0 news channels. Some blogs have quickly overcome these challenges. Huffington Post established in 2005 is already a go to destination for liberal politics.
ReplyDeleteLike any other product appropriate marketing strategy should help overcome these concerns. Associating with USC gives Marketplace on NPR great credibility. Arianna Huffington is a very effective proponent for Huffpost through her multi channel appearances.
Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab has nice research on establishing Web credibility.
http://credibility.stanford.edu/
In summary, we can treat this problem very much like an adoption (Crossing the Chasm, Geoffrey Moore, April 2002) problem and apply techniques to accelerate this adoption.