In Iran: overpowering your political opponents, one Internet connection at a time
Here is another blog post I just wrote for Pro-Media Communications. As always, check out our our site too! We are starting to put up lots of cool things to showcase our knowledge regarding progressive communications!
BLOG: In Iran: overpowering your political opponents, one Internet connection at a time
By Michael P. Falco, Account Assistant
I, like so many over the weekend, was gripped by the coverage coming out of Iran. The mass rallies that have intensified in the wake of the presidential election, in which supporters of Mir-Hossein Moussavi claimed the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a farce, shows firsthand the triumphs and pitfalls of new media. Buried in the comments section of a story on FiveThirtyEight.com was a comment from Darius, a person claiming to be based out of Iran. He displayed the animation and anger that most of us have possessed at one time or another in the wake of bitterly contested political battles. He ends the piece by pointing out that his Facebook and YouTube did not work — social networking was being blocked throughout the country. The passion that built up in the weeks leading up to the election was a evidence of many things: including the power of new media to mobilize people. In countries with an authoritarian streak, social media is a powerful weapon that provides refuge from often state-dominated media, which is more dedicated to propping up the powers that be than being a reliable, unbiased news source. Unfortunately, nations have come to recognize this. It occurred during the Myanmar uprisings in 2007, when the regime shut down cellular and Internet communication. The actions had two effects: it smothered outside interest in the story, because the dramatic images were no longer accessible to the world and it stymied the ability of those within the country to organize. As the New York Times’ online news source The Lede pointed out in its tremendous coverage over the weekend, the difference between the Orange Revolution and Iran’s uprising may very well be the peoples’ ability to access and communicate through new media. Web 2.0 tools allow us to interact in ways once unimaginable, they, in essence, give all of us a megaphone. I am confident some of the most important and lasting social movements of our time will arise from social media. But some governments, the ones desperately clinging to power and used to censoring the flow of information, are doing everything within their power to encompass, overpower and subordinate emerging media. I am still formulating opinions about what this all means, but rarely have I ever been hit with such conflicting doses of optimism and pessimism at once.
via promediacomm.com
ADDENDUM: After finding myself yelling at the TV during O'Reilly's introduction to tonight's show, I figured I should clarify, lest I be compared to the Bill O'Reillys of the world. I in no way want to imply that these are "pro-Democracy" rallies. It cannot be emphasized enough that both candidates — in fact all of the candidates in the Iranian election — were handpicked by the clerics.
So, it is way to simplistic to imply and ascribe meaning to the actions of the protestors. Simply put, they are angered because the more reform-oriented candidate has lost, the candidate to who they invested so much energy. It could be possible that this is a catalyst for serious reforms, but to call them pro-Democracy rallies is way too simplistic (as it is in just about every case of people rising up against Authoritarian regimes.)
Posted by Michael Falco
