This week I tweeted out 2 videos related to my podcast and reached out to all my classmates to follow me on Twitter. I followed each of my classmates’ Twitters as well. Although my podcast relates to the same overarching issue that was discussed in my infographic, it has a very different focus. Rather than analyzing the economic and human cost of America’s military ventures, my podcast examines the current situation in Aleppo. Online media outlets such as The Jimmy Dore Show, The Young Turks, Secular Talk, and The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity have also discussed this issue through podcasts and talk shows.
The mainstream media has largely discontinued coverage of Aleppo since the Syrian government seized control over the city last December. There are 2 primary explanations given for the mainstream media’s dearth of recent Aleppo coverage. Firstly, the mantra of “it bleeds it leads” broadly applies to mainstream media outlets. Secondly, the relative calm of life in Aleppo undermines the legitimacy of American foreign policy in Syria. The American government has consistently voiced hostility towards the government of Bashar Al-Assad. The Trump administration has maintained the hardline stance that a ceasefire negotiation is contingent upon Assad relinquishing his position as president.
Malcolm Gladwell’s column argues that the revolution will not be tweeted because activism proliferates from close networking. Gladwell cites that Martin Luther King’s bus boycott in Montgomery needed discipline and strategy to succeed. He makes a fair point that social media cannot provide the organization that traditional activism requires. However, he neglects the importance of social media’s role in shaping public opinion. In an article published by The Guardian, Cory Doctorow argues that the Internet fosters freedom by lending a voice to dissidents. He points out that the open nature of the Internet makes it difficult for authoritarian governments to control public discourse. This is reflected by the influence of online activity throughout the 2016 election cycle. As I stated in my initial blog post, mainstream media outlets are biased towards either democratic or republican establishments. The conversations taking place online that question the political narrative peddled by mainstream media outlets do reflect a broader social “revolution”. Doctorow also acknowledges that the internet gives a platform to bigoted individuals. Nonetheless, he concludes that the equalizing power of the internet is a positive thing for society.
Asking my classmates to follow me on Twitter is, in a way, the social activism through networking that Gladwell advocates for. However, while Gladwell dismisses Twitter discussions as frivolous, Doctorow embraces the proliferation of online conversation. The continuing influence of online media well after the conclusion of the 2016 election vindicates Gladwell’s perspective. Internet activism is here to stay. In my opinion, online activity’s role in the next social revolution is a question of when not if.